Narendra Prasad vs. State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner challenged the cancellation of their GST registration before the High Court. The petitioner's counsel submitted that a similar issue had been decided by the Court in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025 and that the present petition should be decided on the same lines. The State Counsel conceded that the writ petition could be decided in terms of the judgment in the aforementioned writ petition. The Court then proceeded to decide the present writ petition in terms of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition should be decided in terms of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025. The Court directed that it shall be open for the petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. If the petitioner makes such an application within two weeks from the date of the order and also furnishes all pending returns and deposits unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, the competent authority shall consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation of the cancellation order, as per law, within four weeks from the date of receipt of such application. No specific GST Act or Rules were explicitly discussed or relied upon in the judgment, other than the general context of GST registration cancellation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present writ petition should be decided in terms of the judgment in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, given the concession by the State Counsel. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the present case involves a similar issue to Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025 and therefore, it should be decided in terms of that judgment. Revenue's Contention: The State Counsel conceded that the writ petition could be decided in terms of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025.