M/S Shahid Construction vs. Commmissioner Of The SGST

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shahid Construction, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GSTIN/UIN (05ESPPA4083QIZ5) by the respondent authorities. The cancellation order was dated 09.10.2025. The petitioner stated that due to the tragic death of their son, they were unable to deposit the due tax within the stipulated time. They expressed readiness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, and late fees, and requested permission to pay these dues in six monthly installments. The petitioner sought to quash the cancellation order and direct the respondent to revoke it.

Held

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission regarding the personal tragedy that led to the delay in tax payment and their willingness to clear all dues. The Court also noted the respondent's lack of objection. Citing a precedent in a similar case (Writ Petition No. 39 of 2025 M/B, M/s Anshul Enterprises vs. State Tax Officer), the Court disposed of the writ petition. The petitioner is permitted to file an application for revocation of the cancellation order within two weeks from the date of the order. Upon filing such an application, and furnishing all pending returns, along with the unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, the Competent Authority is directed to consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation in accordance with the law within four weeks of the certified copy of the order being produced. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's application for revocation of GSTIN cancellation, given the circumstances of delayed tax payment due to a personal tragedy. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the delay in tax payment was due to the unfortunate demise of their son. They are willing to clear all dues, including tax, interest, and late fees, and requested the Court to allow them to pay these in installments. They relied on a previous High Court order in Writ Petition No. 39 of 2025 (M/s Anshul Enterprises vs. State Tax Officer) where a similar prayer was allowed. Revenue's arguments: The respondent, represented by the learned Brief Holder, stated that they have no objection to the prayer made by the petitioner.