Sharda Chand vs. Superintendent Central Goods And Services Tax

Original PDF →

WPMB/127/2026HC UttarakhandGSTCNR UKHC01003007202626 February 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY2 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The petitioner, Sharda Chand, assailed an order dated 18.12.2024, passed by the Superintendent, Central Goods and Services Tax, which cancelled the GST registration of her firm. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner relied on a previous order from a Coordinate Bench in WPMB No. 39 of 2025, where a similar situation was addressed. In that case, the petitioner was permitted to file an application 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 meant that the petitioner was permitted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. The Court directed that if the petitioner filed such an application within two weeks from the date of the order and also furnished all pending returns and deposited the unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, the Competent Authority would consider the prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The reasoning was based on the precedent set by the Coordinate Bench in the identical case of WPMB No. 39 of 2025. No specific provision of the GST Act was explicitly discussed or interpreted, but the decision was based on procedural fairness and adherence to previous judicial pronouncements.

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, considering the identical factual matrix. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that in identical facts and circumstances, a Coordinate Bench had permitted the petitioner in WPMB No. 39 of 2025 to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order. They urged that similar liberty should be granted to the present petitioner. The petitioner relied on the operative part of the order in WPMB No. 39 of 2025. Respondent's contention: The respondent, represented by Mr. Shobhit Saharia, 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:1332-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. 127 OF 2026 26TH FEBRUARY, 2026 Sharda Chand …… Petitioner Versus Superintendent, Central Goods and Services Tax …… Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Rohit Arora, learned counsel through video conferencing Counsel for the respondent : Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel The Court made the following:

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

The petitioner has assailed the order dated 18.12.2024 cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner’s firm on the ground that she had failed to file the returns within prescribed period. 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 1

2026:UHC:1332-DB 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)

Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has no objection in case the present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms. 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

2 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=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC51 A722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C18DB 2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2026.02.26 16:06:37 +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.