Jaspal Singh vs. Assistant Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax

Facts

The petitioner, Jaspal Singh, has challenged an order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, which cancelled his GST registration. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file GST returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner relies on a previous order from a Co-ordinate Bench in a similar writ petition (WPMB No. 39 of 2025). In that case, the Court had permitted the petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation order, subject to depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, and directed the authority to decide the application. The State, through its learned Brief Holder, has indicated no objection to a similar disposal of the present petition.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition should be disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No. 39 of 2025. The reasoning is based on the petitioner's submission that the facts and circumstances of the present case are identical to the aforementioned writ petition, where a Co-ordinate Bench had granted specific relief. The Court found no objection from the State's counsel to this approach. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. This application must be made 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 in accordance with the law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. No specific section of the GST Act was discussed in detail, but the decision implicitly relates to the provisions governing cancellation and revocation of registration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to apply for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order, similar to the relief granted in WPMB No. 39 of 2025, given the identical factual matrix. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argues that since the facts and circumstances are identical to WPMB No. 39 of 2025, where a Co-ordinate Bench allowed the petitioner to apply for revocation of cancellation, similar relief should be extended to him. The petitioner seeks permission to file an application for revocation, deposit outstanding dues, and have the authority consider the application. Revenue's contention: The learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand has stated that they have no objection if the present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No. 39 of 2025.