Purshotam Vs Assistant Commissioner — Uttarakhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Purshotam Vs Assistant Commissioner — Uttarakhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner permitted to file an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation within two weeks, subject to furnishing all pending returns and depositing unpaid tax along with interest and penalty; Competent Authority to consider the revocation prayer as per law within four weeks of receipt. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose GST registration was cancelled by order dated 23.10.2023 for failure to file returns within the prescribed period, should be granted the same liberty as in WPMB No. 39 of 2025 to apply for revocation of the cancellation, subject to filing pending returns and depositing unpaid tax with interest and penalty.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No. 39 of 2025: the petitioner is permitted to move an application for revocation of the cancellation of his GST registration within two weeks, furnishing all pending returns and depositing unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, whereupon the Competent Authority shall consider the revocation prayer as per law within four weeks from receipt of the application.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Uttarakhand High Court (Coram: Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J. and Subhash Upadhyay, J.; judgment per the Chief Justice) disposed of Writ Petition (M/B) 228 of 2026 challenging the order dated 23.10.2023 cancelling the petitioner's GST registration for failure to file returns within the prescribed period. Following a Co-ordinate Bench order in WPMB No. 39 of 2025 rendered on identical facts, and with the State's Brief Holder raising no objection, the petition was disposed of in the same terms: the petitioner may apply for revocation within two weeks, furnishing all pending returns and depositing unpaid tax with interest and penalty, and the Competent Authority is to consider the revocation prayer as per law within four weeks of receipt. Pending application(s), if any, were also disposed of.

2026:UHC:2446-DB

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.

AND

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.

7th April, 2026

Writ Petition (M/B) 228 of 2026

Purshotam ------------Petitioner

Versus

Assistant Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, Commissionerate, Dehradun, Uttarakhand

----------Respondents

Presence:-

Shri Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State.

JUDGMENT: (per Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)

The petitioner has assailed the order dated

23.10.2023 cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner on the ground that he had failed to file the returns within prescribed period.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in identical facts and circumstances in WPMB No.39 of 2025 a Co-ordinate Bench has permitted the petitioner therein to file application for revocation of the cancellation order and subject to deposit of unpaid tax along with interest and penalty, the competent

1

2026:UHC:2446-DB

authority has been directed to decide the application for revocation of the cancellation order. The operative part of the order passed in the said writ petition is as follows:

“8. Accordingly, present writ petition is disposed of by permitting petitioner to move an application for revocation of the cancellation order. If he makes such application within two weeks from today and also furnishes all the pending returns and deposits unpaid tax along with interest and amount of penalty, the Competent Authority shall consider the petitioner’s prayer for revocation as per law within four weeks from the date of receipt of such application.”

It is urged that similar liberty may be granted

to the petitioner.

Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand appearing through V.C. and brief holder of Shri Shobhit Saharia, appearing for respondent no. 2 have no objection in case the present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No.39 of 2025.

Pending application, if any, also stands

disposed of.

(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.)

(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)

Dated: 07.04.2026 Kaushal

2

2026:UHC:2446-DB

3