Shivam Papneja vs. Assistant Commissioner State Tax

Original PDF →

WPMB/128/2026HC UttarakhandGSTCNR UKHC01003019202626 February 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY3 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The petitioner, Shivam Papneja, assailed an order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Rudrapur, which cancelled the GST registration of the petitioner's firm. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file GST returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner argued that a Coordinate Bench of the same High Court, in a similar case (WPMB No. 39 of 2025), had granted relief by allowing the petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation order, subject to depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty. The respondent, represented by the learned Brief Holder for the State, had no objection to the present petition being disposed of on similar terms.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition 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. To avail this relief, the petitioner must file such an application within two weeks from the date of the order. Additionally, the petitioner must furnish all pending returns and deposit the unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty. Upon receipt of the application and compliance with 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 receiving the application. The operative directions are to permit the filing of the revocation application and direct the authority to consider it upon compliance.

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 contended that the facts and circumstances of the present case are identical to those in WPMB No. 39 of 2025. They relied on the operative part of the order in that case, which permitted the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order, provided pending returns were furnished and unpaid tax, interest, and penalty were deposited. The petitioner urged that similar liberty should be extended to them. Respondent's Argument: The learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand stated that they had no objection if the present writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No. 39 of 2025.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

2026:UHC:1335-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 128 OF 2026 26TH FEBRUARY, 2026 Shivam Papneja …… Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Rudrapur …… Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Tiwari, learned counsel through video conferencing Counsel for the respondent : Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State through video conferencing The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT: (per Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)

The petitioner has assailed the order dated 02.09.2024 cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner’s firm on the ground that he had failed to file the returns within prescribed period. 1

2026:UHC:1335-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.”

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:1335-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: 26TH FEBRUARY, 2026 Negi

3 HIMANS HU NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13aaf1 16e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90d5757, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC51A 722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C18DB2A 1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2026.02.26 16:07:02 +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.