Ms Al Sheria Furniture House vs. Commissioner State Goods And Service Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Al Sheria Furniture House, has challenged an order dated 16.01.2024, passed by the Commissioner, State Goods & Services Tax, cancelling its GST registration. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner relied on a previous order from a Co-ordinate Bench in WPMB No. 39 of 2025, where a similar petitioner was permitted to apply for revocation of cancellation. In that case, the Court directed the petitioner to file an application for revocation within two weeks, furnish pending returns, and deposit unpaid tax along with interest and penalty. The Competent Authority was then directed to decide the revocation application within four weeks. The State, through its counsel, had no objection to a similar order being passed in the present case.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition should be disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No. 39 of 2025. This means the petitioner, M/s Al Sheria Furniture House, is permitted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order within two weeks from the date of the order. Upon filing such an application, and simultaneously furnishing all pending returns and depositing the unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty, the Competent Authority is directed to consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation in accordance with the law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The Court also noted that any pending applications in this matter stand disposed of.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to file an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order, similar to the relief granted in WPMB No. 39 of 2025? The petitioner argued that in identical facts and circumstances, a Co-ordinate Bench had permitted the petitioner in WPMB No. 39 of 2025 to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order. They contended that subject to depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, the competent authority was directed to decide the revocation application. The petitioner urged that similar liberty should be granted to them. The respondents (Commissioner, State Goods & Services Tax and another) stated through their learned Brief Holder that they had no objection if the present writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No. 39 of 2025.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned in the provided text.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT: (per Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
1)
The petitioner has assailed the order dated 16.01.2024 cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner firm on the ground that it had failed to file the returns within prescribed period. 1
2026:UHC:2188-DB 2)
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in identical facts and circumstances in WPMB No. 39 of 2025 a Co-ordinate Bench has permitted the petitioner therein to file application for revocation of the cancellation order and subject to deposit of unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, the competent authority has been directed to decide the application for revocation of the cancellation order. The operative part of the order passed in said writ petition is as follows :
“8. Accordingly, present writ petition is disposed of by permitting petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. If he makes such application within two weeks from today and also furnishes all the pending returns and deposits unpaid tax along with interest and amount of penalty, the Competent Authority shall consider the petitioner’s prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks from the date of receipt of such application.”
3)
It is urged that similar liberty may be granted to the petitioner. 4)
Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand appearing through V.C. has no objection in case the present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms. 2
2026:UHC:2188-DB 5)
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No. 39 of 2025. 6)
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
_______________________
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
_________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 27TH MARCH, 2026 Negi
3 HIMANS HU NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13aaf11 6e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90d5757, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC51A 722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C18DB2A 1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2026.03.27 18:24:15 +05'30'
Reproduced from the public record of the Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.