Surendra Singh vs. Commissioner , State Goods And Service Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Surendra Singh, challenged an order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, 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 Co-ordinate Bench of the same High Court, in an identical case (Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025), had granted relief to the petitioner therein. The relief involved permitting the petitioner to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order, subject to depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, and directing the competent authority to decide the application. The State's counsel had no objection to similar relief being granted in the present case.
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. The petitioner must file such an application within two weeks from the date of the order and furnish all pending returns. Additionally, the petitioner must deposit the unpaid tax along with interest and the amount of penalty. Upon fulfillment of these conditions, the Competent Authority is directed to consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, as the matter was resolved based on precedent and consent.
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 an identical case by a Co-ordinate Bench. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that his case was factually identical to Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, where a Co-ordinate Bench had permitted the petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation order. This involved filing pending returns and depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, with the competent authority directed to decide the application. The petitioner sought similar liberty. Revenue/State'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 the aforementioned identical case.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned in the judgment text provided, beyond the general reference to GST registration and returns.
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 13.09.2024 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 1
2026:UHC:1186-DB authority has been directed to decide the application for revocation of the cancellation order. The operative part 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
2026:UHC:1186-DB
3
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.