Ketan Vohra vs. Assistant Commissioner States Goods And Services Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Ketan Vohra, has challenged an order dated August 8, 2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, which cancelled his GST registration. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner argued that a coordinate bench of the High Court, in an identical case (WPMB No. 39 of 2025), had granted similar relief. In that case, the petitioner was permitted to apply for revocation of the cancellation order, subject to depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty. The revenue, represented by the learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand, had 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 GST registration cancellation order. The petitioner must file all pending returns and deposit the unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty within two weeks from the date of the order. Upon receipt of such an application and compliance, the Competent Authority shall consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation of the cancellation order in accordance with the law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the 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 GST registration cancellation order, similar to the relief granted in a previous identical writ petition (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. In that case, a coordinate bench had allowed the petitioner to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order, provided pending returns were furnished and unpaid tax, along with interest and penalty, were deposited. The petitioner sought similar liberty. Respondent's Argument: The respondent (Assistant Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax), through the learned Brief Holder for the State, stated that they had no objection if the present writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as the aforementioned writ petition.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned in the judgment text provided.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT: (per Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
The petitioner has assailed the order dated 08.08.2025 cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner on the ground that he had 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 revocation of the cancellation order. The operative part 1
2026:UHC:1222-DB 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: 24.02.2026 Kaushal
2
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.