Huma Power And Tower Private Limited vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissioner

Original PDF →

WPMB/132/2026HC UttarakhandGSTCNR UKHC01003207202609 March 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY2 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The petitioner, Huma Power and Tower Private Limited, has challenged an order dated 12.04.2022 passed by the Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, which cancelled the petitioner's GST registration. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file GST returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner seeks similar relief as granted in a previous writ petition (WPMB No.39 of 2025) where a Co-ordinate Bench allowed the petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation order, subject to depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, and directed the authority to decide the application. The State has 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, along with the deposit of unpaid tax, 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 Court did not explicitly mention any specific section of the GST Act or Rules being discussed in detail, but the underlying issue pertains to the cancellation and revocation of registration due to non-filing of returns.

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 argues that the facts and circumstances of the present case are identical to those in WPMB No.39 of 2025. They rely on the order passed in that petition, which permitted the petitioner therein to apply for revocation of the cancellation order, subject to fulfilling certain conditions. The petitioner requests similar liberty. Revenue's Contention: The learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand stated that they have no objection if the present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No.39 of 2025.

Sections Cited

None explicitly discussed in detail, but the context relates to cancellation and revocation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

2026:UHC:1462-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY Writ Petition (M/B) No.132 of 2026 9 March, 2026 Huma Power and Tower Private Limited --Petitioner Versus Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, Dehradun, Uttarakhand and Another ----Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Shivam Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner through V.C. Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand through V.C. ----------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT : (per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta C. J.)

The petitioner has assailed the order dated 12.04.2022 cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner company on the ground that it has failed to file the returns within prescribed period.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in identical facts and circumstances in WPMB 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

2026:UHC:1462-DB revocation of the cancellation order. 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. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand appearing through V.C. has no objection in case the present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No.39 of 2025. 6. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)

(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 09.03.2026 SS

2 SUKHBANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd129a8a6380d49b1885e628 615, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEBD2B7D72C42261361AED33 172F152148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH Date: 2026.03.09 16:35:47 +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.