Ms Deepak Chuphal vs. Assistant Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Deepak Chuphal, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 23.09.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Department, Pithoragarh. This order cancelled the petitioner firm's GST registration due to failure to file returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner argued that a co-ordinate bench of the same High Court had, in identical circumstances in WPMB No.39 of 2025, allowed the petitioner therein to apply for revocation of the cancellation order. The earlier order directed the competent authority to decide the revocation application after the petitioner filed pending returns and deposited unpaid tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner sought similar relief.

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, M/s Deepak Chuphal, is permitted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order dated 23.09.2023. The petitioner must file this application within two weeks from the date of the order. Concurrently, the petitioner must furnish all pending returns and deposit the unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty. Upon receipt of such an application and compliance with these conditions, the Competent Authority is 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 receiving the application. The reasoning is based on the precedent set by a co-ordinate bench in an identical case, and the respondent's lack of objection to this course of action. 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, considering the identical facts and circumstances. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that since a co-ordinate bench had permitted the petitioner in WPMB No.39 of 2025 to apply for revocation of a GST registration cancellation order issued for non-filing of returns, and had directed the authority to consider the application upon compliance with certain conditions (filing pending returns and depositing tax, interest, and penalty), the same liberty should be extended to the present petitioner. They relied on the operative part of the order in WPMB No.39 of 2025. 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 in the same terms as WPMB No.39 of 2025.