Ms Tiwari Sanitary Works And Enterprises vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Tiwari Sanitary Works and Enterprises, assailed an order dated 30.09.2023 passed by the respondent authority, 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 argued that a co-ordinate bench of the same High Court, in an identical case (WPMB No. 39 of 2025), had granted similar relief. In that prior 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.
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 GST registration cancellation order. The petitioner must file this application within two weeks from the date of the order. Concurrently, the petitioner is required to furnish all pending returns and deposit the unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty. Upon receipt of the application and compliance with the deposit requirements, 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 receiving such application. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to apply for revocation of the cancelled GST registration, considering the precedent set in WPMB No. 39 of 2025. The petitioner contended that in identical facts and circumstances, a co-ordinate bench had allowed the petitioner in WPMB No. 39 of 2025 to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order. They argued that this involved 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 urged that similar liberty should be extended to them. The respondents (Commissioner, State Goods & Services Tax and another) stated that they had no objection if the present writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No. 39 of 2025.
Sections Cited
Not Specified
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT: (per Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
1)
The petitioner has assailed the order dated 30.09.2023 cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner firm on the ground that it had failed to file the returns within prescribed period. 1
2026:UHC:1449-DB 2)
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 revocation of the cancellation order. The operative part of the order passed in 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.”
3)
It is urged that similar liberty may be granted to the petitioner. 4)
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. 2
2026:UHC:1449-DB 5)
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No. 39 of 2025. 6)
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
_______________________
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
_________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 27TH FEBRUARY, 2026 Negi
3 HIMANS HU NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13a af116e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90d5 757, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC 51A722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C 18DB2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2026.02.27 17:48:05 +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.