Facts of the Case

The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled by order dated 13.01.2023 on the ground of default — the petitioner had failed to pay GST for the month of June. The petitioner subsequently deposited the entire outstanding tax and penalty amount. He then approached the Uttarakhand High Court under Article 226 challenging the cancellation order, relying on an earlier coordinate-bench judgment dated 25.08.2023 in WPMS No. 2382 of 2023, M/s Rana Building Material Supplier v. Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate (“the first petition”), where relief had reportedly been granted on comparable facts.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for default in payment could be reconsidered once the petitioner had deposited the outstanding tax and penalty.
  2. Whether the present case was squarely covered by the earlier coordinate-bench decision in the first petition.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The GST registration was cancelled solely because the petitioner defaulted in paying GST for June, and he has since deposited all outstanding tax and penalties.
  • The case is squarely covered by this Court's earlier judgment dated 25.08.2023 in WPMS No. 2382 of 2023, M/s Rana Building Material Supplier v. Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, and the petitioner is entitled to the same relief.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Learned State Counsel admitted that the case was covered by the earlier coordinate-bench judgment relied upon by the petitioner.

Court Order/Findings

  • The Court, noting the State's admission that the matter was covered by the earlier coordinate-bench decision, disposed of the present petition in terms of the order dated 25.08.2023 passed in WPMS No. 2382 of 2023 (the first petition).
  • No independent reasoning was recorded beyond applying the precedent by consent of both sides.

Important Clarification

  • Where GST registration has been cancelled for default and the taxpayer subsequently clears the outstanding tax and penalty, courts have been inclined to extend relief consistent with coordinate-bench precedent on similar facts, provided the Revenue does not dispute its applicability.
  • Litigants relying on an earlier coordinate-bench order for identical relief should be prepared for the Court to simply apply that order by reference, without independently restating its reasoning.

Sections Involved

  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — governs registration and cancellation of GST registration for default in payment of tax, and its restoration on deposit of dues.

Decision – In Favour of

Assessee/Petitioner, in substance. The petition was disposed of in terms of the earlier coordinate-bench order which had granted relief on comparable facts (uncontested by the State), though the present order does not independently spell out the operative relief afresh.

Related Case Laws

No directly on-point case notes are currently published on this site.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Uttarakhand
  • Case No.: WPMS No. 1362 of 2023
  • Coram: Justice Ravindra Maithani
  • Decision Date: 18.10.2023
  • Disposal Nature: Disposed of in terms of coordinate-bench order dated 25.08.2023 in WPMS No. 2382 of 2023

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.