Devendra Singh Kanyal vs. Assistant Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, Devendra Singh Kanyal, challenged an order dated 13.12.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, cancelling his GST registration. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file returns within the prescribed period. The petitioner relied on a previous order from a Co-ordinate Bench in a similar writ petition (WPMB No.39 of 2025). In that case, the petitioner was permitted to apply for revocation of the cancellation order, subject to depositing unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, with the authority directed to decide the application. The State/Revenue Department had no objection to a similar disposal of the present petition.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition should be disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No.39 of 2025. This means the petitioner is permitted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order within two weeks from the date of the order. Upon filing such an application, the petitioner must also furnish all pending returns and deposit the unpaid tax along with applicable interest and penalty. The Competent Authority is then directed to consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation in accordance with the law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided. The ratio decidendi is that identical relief granted in a previous writ petition, with the consent of the revenue, should be extended to a petitioner in a subsequent writ petition with similar facts.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to file an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation order, similar to the relief granted in WPMB No.39 of 2025? The petitioner argued that the facts and circumstances of the present case are identical to those in WPMB No.39 of 2025, where a Co-ordinate Bench allowed the petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation order. The petitioner contended that they should be granted similar liberty. The revenue/State, through its learned Standing Counsel, stated that it had no objection to the writ petition being disposed of in the same terms as the aforementioned precedent case.