Ragini Aggarwal vs. Superintendent Central Goods And Services Tax

Facts

The petitioner, Ragini Aggarwal, challenged an order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the Superintendent, Central Goods & Services Tax, Dehradun, which cancelled the petitioner's GST registration. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner's counsel argued that in a similar case, WPMB No.39 of 2025, a Co-ordinate Bench had allowed the petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation order. This permission was granted subject to the deposit of unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, with directions for the competent authority to decide the revocation application. The respondent's counsel had no objection to a similar disposal of the present writ petition.

Held

The Court held that the 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, the petitioner must also 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 as per law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The reasoning is based on the precedent set by a Co-ordinate Bench in a similar case. 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 WPMB No.39 of 2025? The petitioner argued that identical facts and circumstances warrant the same relief as granted in WPMB No.39 of 2025. The petitioner relied on the operative part of the order in that case, which permitted the petitioner to move an application for revocation, furnish pending returns, and deposit unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, for the Competent Authority to consider the prayer for revocation. The respondent, represented by Mr. Shobhit Saharia, stated they had no objection to the present writ petition being disposed of in the same terms.