Amit Kumar vs. Assistant Commissioner. SGST

Original PDF →

WPMB/77/2026HC UttarakhandGSTCNR UKHC01001900202616 February 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY2 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The petitioner, Amit Kumar, assailed an order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Goods & Services Tax, Udham Singh Nagar, 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 Co-ordinate Bench in Writ Petition (M/B) No.39 of 2025, where a similar petitioner was permitted to file an application for revocation of a cancellation order. In that case, the Court directed the competent authority to decide the revocation application subject to the petitioner depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty.

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. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that his case presented identical facts and circumstances to the aforementioned writ petition, and the respondent State had no objection to this course of action. The operative directions from the previous judgment were adopted: 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 issue was expressly left undecided.

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? The petitioner argued that the facts and circumstances of his case were identical to those in Writ Petition (M/B) No.39 of 2025 and therefore, he should be granted similar liberty to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order. The petitioner relied on the operative part of the order passed in the aforementioned writ petition, which permitted the petitioner therein to move an application for revocation upon furnishing pending returns and depositing unpaid tax along with interest and penalty. The respondent (State) stated that they had no objection if the present writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as Writ Petition (M/B) No.39 of 2025.

Sections Cited

Not Specified

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

2026:UHC:968-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY Writ Petition (M/B) No.77 of 2026 16 February, 2026 Amit Kumar ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner, State Goods & Services Tax, Udham Singh Nagar ----Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Aayush Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent through V.C.

JUDGMENT : (per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta C. J.)

The petitioner has assailed the order dated 24.03.2025 cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner on the ground that he has 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

2026:UHC:968-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: 16.02.2026 Rajni

2 RAJINI GUSAIN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876db484 48ac3701a9ae475a2547e4b7f1d9b1f17 d01342, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A2222B4 DF4FC80D4557562F95BEBA013F53061 6A158A0A878BD8, cn=RAJINI GUSAIN Date: 2026.02.17 10:29:18 +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.