Uttarakhand High Court Applies Earlier Division Bench Ruling in GST Registration Revocation Matter

Background of the Petition

The matter in Ayush Sharma Vs Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax (Uttarakhand High Court) arose from the cancellation of the assessee’s GST registration. The cancellation order was dated 10.11.2022 and related to GSTIN 05FTIPS2066C1ZP. The assessee approached the Uttarakhand High Court under its writ jurisdiction, seeking restoration of the right to pursue statutory remedies under the UKGST/CGST Act, 2017.

The core grievance was that the assessee’s GST registration had been cancelled, but the assessee wished to regularize all pending tax issues and revive the registration by invoking the mechanism provided under Section 30 of the UKGST/CGST Act, 2017.

Reliefs Sought by the Assessee

In the writ petition, the assessee prayed for the following principal reliefs:

1. Quashing of the cancellation order
   The assessee sought a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the case and to set aside the GST registration cancellation order dated 10.11.2022. Along with this, the assessee made a specific statement expressing readiness to:

   • Clear all remaining tax dues;
   • Pay interest on such unpaid tax; and
   • Discharge any applicable late fee.

2. Permission to file revocation application under Section 30
   The assessee sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the authorities to:

   • Permit filing of an application under Section 30 of the UKGST/CGST Act, 2017 for revocation of the cancellation of GST registration; and
   • Direct Respondent No. 2 (State Tax authority) to examine and decide such revocation application strictly in accordance with law.

3. Other consequential reliefs and costs
   The assessee also requested any further appropriate writ, order, or direction that the Court might consider just in the facts of the case, along with costs throughout.

Hearing Before the High Court

Representation of Parties

• The assessee was represented by Mr. Tarun Pandey and Mr. Ashish Agarwal, learned counsel.
• The State was represented by Ms. Pooja Banga, learned Brief Holder, who appeared through virtual mode.

The Court heard both sides and examined the material placed on record.

Issue of Binding Precedent Raised at the Outset

At the initial stage of arguments, learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that the controversy raised in this petition was no longer res integra. It was submitted that a Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court had already addressed an identical legal issue in its judgment dated 24.02.2025 rendered in WPMB No.39 of 2025, M/s Anshul Enterprises through its proprietor Vs. State Tax Officer.

Admission by State Counsel

The counsel representing the respondents did not dispute this submission.