Gayatri Trading Company Crusher vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Gayatri Trading Company Crusher, has challenged an order dated 23.07.2025 that cancelled its GST registration. The cancellation was based on the firm's failure to file its GST returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner argues that the facts are identical to a previous case, WPMB No. 39 of 2025, where a Coordinate Bench granted relief. In that case, the petitioner was permitted to apply for revocation of the cancellation order, subject to depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty. The respondents, represented by the Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, acknowledged that the present controversy is covered by the order in the aforementioned case.

Held

The Court held that the present writ petition is to be disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No. 39 of 2025. This means the petitioner is permitted to move an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order. The petitioner must file this application within two weeks from the date of the order. Concurrently, the petitioner is required to furnish all pending returns and deposit the unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty. Upon receipt of such an application and compliance with the conditions, the Competent Authority shall consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation of the cancellation order in accordance with the law within four weeks from the date of receiving the application. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity to apply for revocation of its GST registration cancellation order, given its failure to file returns, in light of the principles of natural justice and the precedent set in similar cases? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argues that in identical circumstances, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPMB No. 39 of 2025 has granted liberty to the petitioner therein to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order. They contend that this relief, subject to compliance with deposit of unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, and filing of pending returns, should be extended to them. Respondents' Contention: The learned counsel for the respondents/CGST stated that the controversy in the present writ petition is covered by the order passed in WPMB No. 39 of 2025 and indicated their agreement with granting similar relief.