M/S Talib Contractor vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax, Dehradun

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Talib Contractor, has challenged an order dated 25.03.2025, passed by the Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Dehradun, which cancelled the petitioner's GST registration. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file GST returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner argued that a Co-ordinate Bench of the same High Court, in a similar case (WPMB No.39 of 2025), had permitted the petitioner therein to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order. The petitioner sought similar liberty. The respondent, represented by the Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, had no objection to the petition being disposed of on similar terms.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition should be disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No.39 of 2025. This meant that the petitioner, M/s Talib Contractor, was permitted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order of its GST registration. This permission was subject to the petitioner filing the application within two weeks from the date of the order. Furthermore, the petitioner was required to furnish all pending returns and deposit the unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty. Upon fulfillment of these conditions, the Competent Authority was directed to consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation of the cancellation order in accordance with the law, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The Court did not expressly leave any issue 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 WPMB No.39 of 2025, considering the identical facts and circumstances? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that since the facts and circumstances of the present case are identical to those in WPMB No.39 of 2025, where a Co-ordinate Bench permitted the petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation order, similar relief should be granted. They relied on the operative part of the order in WPMB No.39 of 2025, which allowed the petitioner therein to move an application for revocation, subject to furnishing pending returns and depositing unpaid tax along with interest and penalty. Respondent's contention: The respondent, through their learned counsel, stated that they had no objection if the present writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No.39 of 2025.