Vinod Prasad vs. Commissioner Goods And Service Tax

Original PDF →
WPMB/91/2026HC UttarakhandGSTCNR UKHC01002121202616 February 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, Vinod Prasad, has challenged an order dated 25.07.2023, passed by the Commissioner, Goods and Service Tax, Commissionerate, Dehradun, which cancelled his GST registration. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file Goods and Services Tax (GST) returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner argued that in a similar case, WPMB No.39 of 2025, a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court had permitted the petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation order. The respondents, represented by the learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand, did not object to the present writ 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 WPMB 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, and provided the petitioner furnishes all pending returns and deposits the unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty, the Competent Authority shall consider the prayer for revocation in accordance with the law within four weeks from the date of receiving the application. The Court did not explicitly leave any issue undecided, as the decision was based on precedent and the respondents' lack of objection.

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 contended that the facts and circumstances of the present case are identical to those in WPMB No.39 of 2025, where a Co-ordinate Bench allowed the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. The petitioner argued that they should be granted similar liberty. The respondents, through the learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand, stated they had no objection if the present writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as the aforementioned case.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
2026:UHC:958-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.91 of 2026 16 February, 2026 Vinod Prasad -----Petitioner Versus Commissioner, Goods and Service Tax, Commissionerate, Dehradadun and Another ----Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Tarun Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. ----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

1.

The petitioner has assailed the order dated 25.07.2023 cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner on the ground that he has failed to file the returns within prescribed period.

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

1

2026:UHC:958-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.”

3.

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.

5.

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 SS

2 SUKHBANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd129a 8a6380d49b1885e628615, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEBD2B7 D72C42261361AED33172F152148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH Date: 2026.02.17 13:15:41 +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.