Jameel vs. Superintendent Central Goods And Services Tax

Original PDF →

WPMB/26/2026HC UttarakhandGSTCNR UKHC01000611202609 January 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY1 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner's Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration was cancelled due to non-filing of GST returns. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation order dated 11.02.2023. The petitioner contended that an identical issue had been decided by the High Court in a previous writ petition, WPMB No.39 of 2025, and requested that the current petition be decided in line with that judgment. The respondent, representing the revenue, conceded that the issue was identical and agreed to the petition being decided based on the precedent cited by the petitioner.

Held

The Court held that since both parties agreed that the issue involved in the present writ petition was identical to the issue decided in WPMB No.39 of 2025, the writ petition should be disposed of in terms of the judgment rendered in that prior case. The reasoning was based on the consensus between the petitioner and the respondent. The Court did not delve into the merits of the cancellation order itself but relied on the agreed-upon precedent. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the judgment dated 24.02.2025 in WPMB No.39 of 2025. No specific section of the GST Act was discussed in the judgment provided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns, where an identical issue has been previously decided by this Court, should be decided in terms of the prior judgment? (Question of law) Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that their GST registration cancellation was based on grounds identical to those in WPMB No.39 of 2025, a case previously decided by this Court. They contended that the present petition should therefore be disposed of in accordance with the ruling in that precedent. Revenue's Argument: The respondent conceded that the issue presented in this writ petition was indeed identical to the one decided in WPMB No.39 of 2025. Consequently, they agreed that the writ petition could be decided in terms of the judgment relied upon by the petitioner.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

2026:UHC:505-DB arNo Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS 09.01.2026 WPMB No.26 of 2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. (Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) Mr. Pankaj Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner through V.C. 2. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled due to non-filing of GST returns. 4. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the cancellation order dated 11.02.2023. It is contended that identical issue was decided by this Court in WPMB No.39 of 2025. Counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition be decided in terms of that

judgment.

Learned counsel for the respondent concedes that the issue involved is identical, therefore, he submits that the writ petition may be decided in terms of the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner.

In view of consensus between the parties, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of judgment dated 24.02.2025 rendered in WPMB No.39 of 2025. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 09.01.2026 SS

Reproduced from the public record of the Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.