Deepak vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate

Original PDF →

WPMB/101/2026HC UttarakhandGSTCNR UKHC01002358202618 February 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY3 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The petitioner, Deepak, assails an order dated 22.07.2023 that cancelled the GST registration of his firm. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file GST returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner relies on a previous order from a Co-ordinate Bench in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, which dealt with identical facts and circumstances. In that case, the Court permitted the petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation order, subject to depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, and directed the competent authority to decide the application. The State's counsel has no objection to a similar disposal 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 GST registration cancellation order. The petitioner must file this application within two weeks from the date of the order and, concurrently, furnish all pending returns and deposit the unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty. Upon fulfillment of these conditions, 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 reasoning is based on the precedent set by a Co-ordinate Bench in an identical case and the lack of objection from the State.

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, given the identical factual matrix. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contends that since the facts and circumstances are identical to those in WPMB No. 39 of 2025, where a Co-ordinate Bench allowed the petitioner to apply for revocation of cancellation, similar liberty should be extended to them. They rely on the operative part of the order in WPMB No. 39 of 2025, which permitted the petitioner therein to move an application for revocation upon furnishing pending returns and depositing unpaid tax along with interest and penalty. Revenue's Argument: The learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand stated that they have no objection if the present writ petition is 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:1071-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. 101 OF 2026 18TH FEBRUARY, 2026 Deepak …… Petitioner Versus Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax & another …… Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Vishal Kumar Nautiyal and Ms. Shalini Thakral, learned counsels Counsel for the respondents : Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State through video conferencing The Court made the following:

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

The petitioner has assailed the order dated 22.07.2023 cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner’s firm on the ground that he had failed to file the returns within prescribed period. 1

2026:UHC:1071-DB 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 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)

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. 2

2026:UHC:1071-DB 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: 18TH FEBRUARY, 2026 Negi

3 HIMANS HU NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13a af116e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90d5 757, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC 51A722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C 18DB2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2026.02.18 18:20:24 +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.