Ms Arjun Singh Proprietorship Firm vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Commissionerate
Facts
The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the cancellation of their GST registration, which was ordered on March 1, 2023. The petitioner sought to quash this order and requested permission to file an application for revocation of the cancellation under Section 30 of the UKGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner expressed readiness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, and late fees. The State counsel acknowledged that the controversy was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court.
Held
The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel submitted that the controversy was squarely covered by a previous judgment of the High Court dated February 24, 2025, in WPSB No. 39 of 2025, Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd Vs. Dinesh Chandra Gururani. The learned State Counsel admitted this fact. Consequently, the Court decided the instant petition in terms of the aforementioned judgment. The specific findings or reasoning from the cited judgment were not detailed in the provided text, but the operative direction was to dispose of the current petition based on that precedent. The Court did not expressly leave any issues undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated March 1, 2023, cancelling their GST registration, given their willingness to clear all dues? (Question of law) 2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file an application for revocation of GST registration cancellation under Section 30 of the UKGST/CGST Act, 2017, and whether the respondent should be directed to consider it? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the cancellation order should be quashed as they are prepared to pay all outstanding tax, interest, and late fees. They also sought a direction to file an application for revocation of cancellation under Section 30 of the UKGST/CGST Act, 2017, and for the respondent to consider it. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State counsel admitted that the controversy in the present petition is squarely covered by a previous judgment of the High Court dated February 24, 2025, in WPSB No. 39 of 2025, Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd Vs. Dinesh Chandra Gururani.
Sections Cited
Section 30
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS D2- 13
WPMB No.869 of 2025 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Pujaa Banga, Brief Holder for the State, through video conferencing. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- i. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling the record of the case and quash the cancellation of GST Registration order dated 01.03.2023 (Annexure No.3 to W.P) as petitioner is ready to pay all the balance tax, interest on it and late fee if any. ii. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus permitting the petitioner to prefer an application under Section 30 of the UKGST/CGST Act 2017, for filing an application for revocation of the cancellation of the GSTIN 05ETWPS8897A1ZP of the Petitioner and further direct the Respondent No.2 to consider the application of the Petitioner in accordance with law. iii. Issue any other writ order or direction wh
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.