Prakash Singh Nagarkoti vs. State Of Uttarakhand
Facts
The petitioner, Dr. Govind Singh Latwal, challenged an order cancelling his GST registration. The issue at hand concerns the excisability of royalty on minerals, a matter currently pending before the Apex Court. The petitioner argued that the Tax Authorities should have considered this pending issue before proceeding with the cancellation of his GST registration. The judgment does not specify the tax period(s) or the exact amount in dispute, nor does it detail the procedural history leading to the cancellation order.
Held
The Court held that the Tax Authorities ought to have factored in the pending Apex Court decision regarding the excisability of royalty on minerals before considering the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration. The Court acknowledged that the Apex Court has previously held royalty not to be a tax, but noted the issue is still seized by the Apex Court. The Court directed that the petitioner be permitted to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order under Section 30 of the Act of 2017. Upon depositing a sum equivalent to 20% of the tax dues within two weeks, the Authorities are to consider the revocation of the cancellation order. If the deposit is made, the order freezing the bank accounts shall also stand stayed. The Court did not expressly leave any issues undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Tax Authorities ought to have factored in the pending Apex Court decision on the excisability of royalty on minerals before considering the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Tax Authorities should have considered the pending Apex Court case regarding the excisability of royalty on minerals before deciding to cancel his GST registration. The petitioner relies on the Apex Court's prior holding that royalty is not a tax, suggesting this principle should have influenced the authorities' decision. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State (revenue) on this issue.
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
WPMB No. 394 of 2025 Hon’ble G. Narendar, C.J. Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Dr. Govind Singh Latwal and Mr. Pankaj Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Pooja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Brief Holder for the State.
The issue regarding excisability of the royalty on the minerals is pending consideration before the Apex Court. It is, no doubt, true that the Apex Court has already held that royalty is not a tax.
Be that as it may, the issue is still seized of by the Apex Court. We are of the opinion that the Tax Authorities ought to have factored in the said aspect of the matter before considering the cancellation of the GST registration.
In that view, we permit the petitioner to file an application for revocation of cancellation order under Section 30 of the Act of 2017 and also deposit a sum equivalent to 20% of the tax dues within a period of two weeks and if such deposit is made, the Authorities shall consider re
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.