A R Buildwell vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Commissioner Dehradun

Facts

The petitioner, A.R. Buildwell, filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court seeking to quash an order dated 22.11.2024, which cancelled its GST registration. The petitioner also sought a writ of mandamus to allow them to file an application under Section 30 of the UK GST/CGST Act, 2017, for revocation of the cancellation order. The respondents pointed out that after the cancellation, a notice dated 02.01.2025 was issued seeking information, and by an order dated 07.02.2025, the petitioner's application was rejected for failing to furnish the requested information. This subsequent order dated 07.02.2025 was not under challenge in the present petition.

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner's primary prayer was to quash the order dated 22.11.2024 and to permit them to file an application for revocation. However, the respondents brought to the Court's attention that a subsequent order dated 07.02.2025 had already rejected the petitioner's application for revocation due to non-furnishing of information. Crucially, this order dated 07.02.2025 was not under challenge in the present writ petition. The petitioner's counsel, after brief submissions, sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to challenge the order dated 07.02.2025 in separate proceedings. The Court allowed this withdrawal, granting the petitioner the liberty to pursue independent legal remedies against the order dated 07.02.2025. No specific findings were made on the merits of the cancellation order or the subsequent rejection order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should entertain a challenge to an order dated 22.11.2024 cancelling GST registration, when a subsequent order dated 07.02.2025, rejecting an application for revocation of cancellation, is not under challenge. The petitioner argued that they sought to quash the initial cancellation order and obtain a mandamus to file a revocation application. The respondents contended that the order dated 07.02.2025, which rejected the petitioner's application for revocation, is the operative order and is not challenged, rendering the present petition infructuous. The respondents also highlighted that the petitioner failed to furnish information sought by the notice dated 02.01.2025, leading to the rejection of their application.