Tara Dutt vs. State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tara Dutt, has challenged an order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the State Tax Officer, which cancelled the petitioner's GST registration. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner's counsel submitted that a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court, in an identical case (WPMB No.39 of 2025), had permitted the petitioner therein to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order. This permission was granted subject to the deposit of unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, and directed the competent authority to decide the revocation application. The State's 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 is permitted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order within two weeks from the date of the order. The petitioner is also required to furnish all pending returns and deposit the unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty. Upon fulfillment of these conditions, the Competent Authority is directed to consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation of the cancellation order in accordance with the law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The Court did not explicitly discuss any specific provisions of the GST Act or Rules, but the decision is based on precedent and the principle of parity.

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 Argument: The petitioner argued that the facts and circumstances of the present case are identical to those in WPMB No.39 of 2025. Therefore, the petitioner should be granted similar liberty to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order. The petitioner relied on the operative part of the order passed in WPMB No.39 of 2025, which permitted the petitioner therein to move such an application within two weeks, furnish pending returns, and deposit unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, after which the Competent Authority was directed to consider the revocation prayer. Respondent's Argument: The State Tax Officer, through its counsel, had no objection to the present writ petition being disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No.39 of 2025.