Mayank Bargali vs. Assistant Commissioner Good And Services Tax Haldwani

Facts

The petitioner, Mayank Bargali, assailed an order dated 30.11.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Goods & Services Tax, Haldwani, which cancelled his GST registration. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner relied on a previous order from a Coordinate Bench in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, where a similar situation was addressed. In that case, the petitioner was permitted to apply for revocation of the cancellation order, subject to depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, with the authority directed to decide the application.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition should be disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No. 39 of 2025. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that his case presented identical facts and circumstances to the aforementioned writ petition, where a Coordinate Bench had granted specific relief. The respondents did not object to this course of action. Therefore, the Court permitted the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order within two weeks from the date of the order. Upon filing such an application, along with all pending returns and the deposit of unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, the Competent Authority was 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. No specific section of the GST Act was discussed in detail, but the decision implicitly relates to the provisions governing cancellation and revocation of GST 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 WPMB No. 39 of 2025? The petitioner argued that the facts and circumstances of his case are identical to those in WPMB No. 39 of 2025, and therefore, he should be granted similar relief. He sought permission to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order and for the competent authority to consider it, subject to compliance with the conditions stipulated in the previous order. The respondents, represented by 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 WPMB No. 39 of 2025.