Satyavan vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Commissioner

WPMB/935/2026HC UttarakhandGSTCNR UKHC01019806202604 November 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Held

The Court held that the present writ petition was identical to Writ Petition (M/B) No. 1129 of 2025, which had been decided by a co-ordinate bench. Consequently, the Court decided the present writ petition in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 1129 of 2025, dated 03.01.2025. The reasoning for this decision was the concession made by the Revenue's counsel that the issues were identical. The operative direction was that the writ petition stands ordered accordingly, and any pending applications were also disposed of. The specific findings or reasoning from the order in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 1129 of 2025 were not detailed in this judgment, but the principle applied is that identical matters, especially where the Revenue concedes to the similarity, should be decided based on established precedents by co-ordinate benches.

Facts

The petitioner, Satyavan, had his Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration cancelled by an order dated 11.12.2024. The cancellation was based on the ground of non-filing of GST returns for six consecutive months, as indicated in the show-cause notice. The petitioner contended that an identical issue had been decided by a co-ordinate bench of the High Court in a previous writ petition, Writ Petition (M/B) No. 1129 of 2025. The counsel for the Revenue conceded that the issue in the present writ petition was indeed identical to the one decided in the earlier writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months is justified, considering the precedent set by a co-ordinate bench of this Court? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that the issue before the Court was identical to that decided in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 1129 of 2025, and therefore, the present petition should be decided in terms of the order passed in the earlier case. The Revenue, through its counsel, conceded that the issue was indeed identical to the one decided in the aforementioned writ petition. No specific arguments were recorded for the Revenue beyond this concession.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

UKHC010198062026 2026:UHC:10202-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 935 OF 2026 4TH NOVEMBER, 2026 Satyavan …… Petitioner Versus Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax and another …… Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Manvendra Singh, learned counsel Counsel for the respondent : Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the CGST-Revenue The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT: (per Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J.)

G.S.T. registration of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 11.12.2024. Show-cause notice issued to the petitioner reveals that registration of his firm was cancelled due to non-filing of GST returns for six consecutive months. 2)

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that identical issued was decided by co-ordinate bench in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 1129 of 2025. 3)

Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel appearing for

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.

Create a free account Sign in

See plans and prices

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.