Ms Haritima Enterprises vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate

Facts

The petitioner, whose GST registration number is 05AEOPP3466P1ZP, filed a writ petition seeking to quash the cancellation of their GST registration order dated 02.03.2023. The petitioner expressed readiness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, and late fees. Additionally, the petitioner sought a direction to permit them to file an application under Section 30 of the UKGST/CGST Act, 2017, for revocation of the cancellation, and for the respondent no. 2 to consider this application. The petitioner's counsel stated that the controversy was squarely covered by a previous judgment of the same High Court dated 24.02.2025 in WPSB No. 39 of 2025, Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd Vs. Dinesh Chandra Gururani. The State Counsel admitted this fact.

Held

The Court held that the instant petition is decided in terms of the judgment dated 24.02.2025, passed by the Court in WPSB No. 39 of 2025, Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd Vs. Dinesh Chandra Gururani. The reasoning is based on the admission by the learned State Counsel that the controversy in the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. Therefore, the Court did not independently analyze the facts or legal arguments but applied the precedent. The operative direction is that the petition is decided in terms of the prior judgment. The specific reliefs granted under the precedent judgment (e.g., allowing revocation application, quashing cancellation order) are not detailed in this order but are implicitly adopted by reference.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 02.03.2023 cancelling their GST registration, given their willingness to pay all dues. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing respondent no. 2 to permit them to file an application for revocation of GST registration under Section 30 of the UKGST/CGST Act, 2017, and to consider it. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the present controversy is squarely covered by the High Court's previous judgment in Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd Vs. Dinesh Chandra Gururani (WPSB No. 39 of 2025, dated 24.02.2025). This implies that the petitioner likely contended that the principles laid down in that judgment should apply to their case, allowing for the possibility of revocation and consideration of their application upon payment of dues. Revenue/State's arguments: The State Counsel admitted that the matter is covered by the aforementioned judgment, indicating no opposition to the petitioner's contention that the case is governed by the precedent.