Bhagwati Trade Suppliers vs. State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Bhagwati Trade Suppliers, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 15.04.2025 passed by the State Tax Officer. This order cancelled the petitioner's GST registration. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to provide bank details as required by Rule 10A of the Uttarakhand GST Rules. The petitioner argued that a co-ordinate bench had previously granted similar relief in an identical 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. The State, 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. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that the facts and circumstances were identical to the precedent case. The State's counsel also had no objection to this course of action. The operative directions were that the petitioner would be 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 and also furnishes all pending returns and deposits the unpaid tax along with interest and 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. 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, considering the precedent set in WPMB No.39 of 2025? (Question of law and procedure, turning on principles of natural justice and judicial precedent). 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. They further contended that upon furnishing pending returns and depositing unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, the competent authority was directed to decide the revocation application. The petitioner sought similar liberty. Respondent's Contention: The State Tax Officer, represented by the learned Brief Holder, stated that they had no objection if the present writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as the aforementioned precedent case.