Gupta Developers vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Gupta Developers, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 14.06.2025 that cancelled its GST registration. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner cited a previous order from a Co-ordinate Bench in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, where a similar petitioner was permitted to apply for revocation of cancellation. In that prior case, the court directed the Competent Authority to decide the revocation application after the petitioner filed pending returns and deposited unpaid tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner requested similar relief.
Held
The Court held that the present writ petition was to be disposed of in the same terms as Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025. This meant that the petitioner was 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, the petitioner was also required to furnish all pending returns and deposit the unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty. The Competent Authority was then 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 reasoning was based on the precedent set by the Co-ordinate Bench in the earlier writ petition, which the respondents conceded covered the present controversy. No issue was expressly left undecided.
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 Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025? The petitioner argued that the facts and circumstances of its case were identical to Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, and therefore, it should be granted similar relief. The petitioner relied on the operative part of the order in the aforementioned writ petition, which permitted the petitioner therein to move an application for revocation of cancellation within two weeks, subject to furnishing pending returns and depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty. The respondents, represented by Ms. Riddhi Joshi, stated that the controversy in the present petition was covered by the order passed in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned in the judgment text provided, other than the general reference to GST registration cancellation and filing of returns.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT : (per Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
The petitioner-firm has assailed the order dated 14.06.2025 cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner- firm on the ground that it had failed to file the returns within prescribed period.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-firm submits that, in identical facts and circumstances, in Writ Petition (M/B) 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. 1
2026:UHC:2149-DB
The operative part of the order passed in the 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.
Ms. Riddhi Joshi, learned brief holder for Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the respondents states that the controversy is covered by the order passed in the aforesaid case.
Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is disposed of in the same terms, as WPMB No. 39 of 2025. 6. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
______________________ MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
___________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 25th March, 2026 Rahul 2
RAHUL PRAJAPATI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=aa4fa3bee6691397758b14516ed3e 66e61bf4c848741983ed8c39e4145cf1dab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=303B55CC3063D34AC45BF8 A192FCAD15C390A1AAD7B39857D2540AE 4C28A4898, cn=RAHUL PRAJAPATI Date: 2026.03.27 15:55:52 +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.