Devendra Kumar vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, Devendra Kumar, challenged an order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the Commissioner, State Goods & Services Tax, Dehradun, which cancelled his 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 a similar case, WPMB No.39 of 2025. In that case, the petitioner was permitted to apply for revocation of the cancellation order, subject to depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, and the authority was directed to decide the revocation application. The State/respondent, through its learned Brief Holder, had no objection to the present petition being disposed of 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 within two weeks from the date of the order. Upon filing such an application, and furnishing all pending returns and depositing the unpaid tax along with 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 reasoning is based on the precedent set by a Co-ordinate Bench in a similar case, which the State had no objection to following. No specific GST Act or Rule provisions were explicitly discussed or interpreted, but the decision hinges on procedural fairness and the established practice of allowing a chance for rectification in such cases. 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 WPMB No.39 of 2025? Petitioner's contention: 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. This included furnishing pending returns and depositing unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, after which the competent authority was directed to decide the revocation application. The petitioner sought similar liberty. Revenue/State's contention: The learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand stated that they had no objection if the present writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No.39 of 2025.