Abhay Bist vs. Superintendent Central Goods And Services Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Abhay Bist, challenged an order dated 30.05.2024, passed by the Superintendent, Central Goods & Services Tax, Dehradun, which cancelled his GST registration. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner sought similar relief as granted in a previous identical case, Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, where a Co-ordinate Bench allowed the petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation order. The State of Uttarakhand, represented by its counsel, had no objection to the present petition being disposed of on similar terms.
Held
The Court held that the present 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, the petitioner must also furnish all pending returns and deposit the unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty. The Competent Authority is then directed to consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation in accordance with the law within four weeks from the date of receiving the application. The reasoning is based on the principle of parity and the respondent's lack of objection to similar relief being granted. No specific provisions of the GST Act were discussed in detail, but the decision implicitly relates to the process of cancellation and revocation of registration.
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. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the facts and circumstances of his case are identical to those in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025. He relied on the operative part of the order in that case, which permitted the petitioner therein to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order, subject to furnishing pending returns and depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner requested similar liberty. Respondent'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.
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 30.05.2024 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 authority has been directed to decide the application for revocation of the cancellation order. The operative part 1
2026:UHC:1219-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.