Prayag Narain vs. Assistant Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Prayag Narain, assailed an order dated 28.02.2025 passed by the Superintendent, Central Goods and Service Tax, which cancelled his GST registration. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner's counsel submitted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar case (WPMB No. 39 of 2025) where the petitioner was permitted to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order. This was subject to the deposit of unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, after which the authority was directed to decide the revocation application. The petitioner sought similar relief.
Held
The Court held that the controversy in the present writ petition was covered by the order passed in WPMB No. 39 of 2025. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as the earlier case. This meant the petitioner was 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 and depositing the unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, the Competent Authority was directed to consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. No specific provision of the GST Act was explicitly discussed or interpreted, but the decision was based on precedent and procedural fairness.
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 WPMB No. 39 of 2025? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the facts and circumstances of his case were identical to those in WPMB No. 39 of 2025. He relied on the order passed in that writ petition, which permitted the petitioner therein to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order, subject to furnishing pending returns and depositing unpaid tax along with interest and penalty. The petitioner sought similar liberty to approach the competent authority for revocation. Respondent's Argument: The learned Brief Holder for the State stated that the controversy in the present writ petition was covered by the order passed in the aforementioned case (WPMB No. 39 of 2025).
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT :(per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
On oral request made by learned counsel for the petitioner, he is permitted to correct the description of the respondent in the cause-title.
The petitioner has assailed the order dated 28.02.2025 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 1
2026:UHC:1065-DB 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 appearing through video conferencing, on whom notice of the instant writ petition was served initially, in order to assist the Court, states that the controversy is covered by the order passed in the afore-said case.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No.39 of 2025. 7. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. Dated: 18th February, 2026 NISHANT 2 NISHANT KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=ad3fcb5ca64340f5dd0a4c574afa0fd63133605ca57cdc00ec2b74 62b452b326, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=7E81318F3B1BE7EAAC9370185F7C9C20892BC63A055CFD 1961690560487E670C, cn=NISHANT KUMAR Date: 2026.02.19 10:40:26 +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.