Johar Ali vs. Assistant Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, Johar Ali, has challenged an order dated 14.05.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-2, Haldwani, Uttarakhand, which cancelled his GST registration. 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 Co-ordinate Bench in Writ Petition (M/B) No.39 of 2025, where a similar situation led to the petitioner being permitted to apply for revocation of the cancellation order. The earlier order directed the competent authority to decide the revocation application subject to the deposit of unpaid tax, interest, and penalty.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition should be disposed of in the same terms as Writ Petition (M/B) 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 discuss any specific provisions of the GST Act or Rules, but rather followed the precedent set by a Co-ordinate Bench.

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 Writ Petition (M/B) No.39 of 2025, considering identical facts and circumstances? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that since a Co-ordinate Bench had allowed a petitioner in an identical case to apply for revocation of a cancellation order, subject to certain conditions, the same liberty should be extended to him. He relied on the operative part of the order in WPMB No.39 of 2025. Revenue's Contention: 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 the aforementioned writ petition.