Raju vs. Assistant Commissioner SGST

Facts

The petitioner, Raju, has challenged an order dated 30.08.2024 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 GST returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner's counsel submitted that a co-ordinate bench of the High Court, in a similar case (WPMB No.39 of 2025), had allowed the petitioner to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order. This permission was granted subject to the deposit of unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, with a direction to the competent authority to decide the revocation application.

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in the same terms as WPMB No.39 of 2025. This means the petitioner is permitted to move an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order. The petitioner must file this application within two weeks from the date of the order. Upon filing the application, the petitioner is also required to furnish all pending returns and deposit the unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty. The Competent Authority is then directed to consider the petitioner's 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 matter was resolved based on precedent and the respondent's no-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, considering the identical factual matrix. 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, the same relief should be extended. They relied on the operative part of the order in the aforementioned writ petition, which permitted the petitioner therein to move an application for revocation upon furnishing pending returns and depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty. Respondent's contention: The learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand stated that they had no objection if the present writ petition was disposed of on the same terms as WPMB No.39 of 2025.