Ms A And M Constructions vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate

Original PDF →

WPMB/186/2026HC UttarakhandGSTCNR UKHC01004285202627 March 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY3 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The petitioner, M/s A & M Constructions, assailed an order dated 27.05.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax & another, which cancelled the petitioner firm's GST registration. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner brought to the Court's attention a previous order from a Coordinate Bench in WPMB No. 39 of 2025, where a similar situation was dealt with. In that case, the Court had permitted the petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation order, subject to depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty. The respondents' counsel indicated no objection to disposing of the present petition on similar terms.

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 is permitted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. If the petitioner files such an application within two weeks from the date of the order, furnishes all pending returns, and deposits the unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty, the Competent Authority shall consider the prayer for revocation in accordance with the law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The reasoning is based on the principle of parity and the lack of objection from the respondents. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to file an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order, considering the precedent set in WPMB No. 39 of 2025? (Question of law and procedure) The petitioner argued that in identical facts and circumstances, a Coordinate Bench had permitted the petitioner therein to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order. They urged that similar liberty should be granted to the present petitioner. The respondents, represented by Mr. Shobhit Saharia, stated that they had no objection if the present writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as the aforementioned precedent.

Sections Cited

None explicitly mentioned in the judgment text provided.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

2026:UHC:2183-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 186 OF 2026 27TH MARCH, 2026 M/s A & M Constructions …… Petitioner Versus Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax & another …… Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Prince Chauhan, learned counsel through video conferencing Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT: (per Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)

The petitioner has assailed the order dated 27.05.2023 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:2183-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.”

It is urged that similar liberty may be granted to the petitioner. 4)

Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the respondents has no objection in case the present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms. 2

2026:UHC:2183-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=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13a af116e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90d5 757, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC 51A722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C 18DB2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2026.03.27 18:23:24 +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.