The Uttarakhand High Court, by following its own prior precedent, reiterates that applications for revocation of cancellation of GST registration—when the petitioner evidences readiness to pay outstanding tax and dues—must be considered in accordance with law. The decision consolidates existing jurisprudence rather than introducing new law and is binding on subordinate courts and GST authorities in Uttarakhand.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPMB/869/2025 of MS ARJUN SINGH PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM Vs COMMISSIONER STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX COMMISSIONERATE |
| CNR | UKHC010160652025 |
| Date of Registration | 10-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDRA MAITHANI, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Bench | Division Bench (Hon’ble Justice Ravindra Maithani and Hon’ble Justice Alok Mahra) |
| Precedent Value | Binding precedent within Uttarakhand; follows existing High Court precedent |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms prior decision in WPSB No.39 of 2025, Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd Vs. Dinesh Chandra Gururani |
| Type of Law | Administrative / Tax Law, GST Registration |
| Questions of Law | Whether a registered taxpayer whose GST registration was cancelled can be permitted to file an application under Section 30 of the UKGST/CGST Act for revocation, subject to payment of all dues. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that where the issue is covered by its prior judgment, and petitioner is ready to pay balance tax, interest, and late fee, the Court will dispose of the petition per earlier precedent. The petitioner is permitted to apply for revocation of GST cancellation, and the respondent authority is directed to consider the application in accordance with law. The controversy being squarely covered by the previous decision obviates the need for further substantive analysis in the current matter. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Judgment dated 24.02.2025 in WPSB No.39 of 2025, Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd Vs. Dinesh Chandra Gururani |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Relied on its own previous ruling regarding the procedural entitlement to seek revocation of GST cancellation when dues are acknowledged and willingness to pay is manifest. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled. The petitioner sought to quash the cancellation order and permission to apply under Section 30 of the UKGST/CGST Act for revocation, offering to pay all outstanding statutory dues. The State admitted the matter was covered by existing precedent. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and GST authorities within Uttarakhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, similar proceedings across Indian states (especially where local provisions are analogous to UKGST/CGST Act) |
| Follows | WPSB No.39 of 2025, Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd Vs. Dinesh Chandra Gururani |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court explicitly affirms that if a petitioner is ready and willing to pay all dues (tax, interest, late fees), the petitioner may seek revocation of GST registration cancellation under Section 30.
- Litigants can invoke this judgment to streamline restoration of GST registration, referencing binding Uttarakhand precedent.
- The judgment underscores the importance of earlier intra-court precedents for procedural tax matters and facilitates speedy disposal when disputes are squarely covered.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner’s counsel submitted (and the State conceded) that the controversy was already decided in the High Court’s judgment dated 24.02.2025, in Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd Vs. Dinesh Chandra Gururani.
- The Court found that, as the issue was squarely covered, the petition too must be disposed of in terms of the earlier precedent.
- Accordingly, it permitted the petitioner to apply for revocation of GST registration cancellation under Section 30, and directed the concerned authority to consider such application in accordance with law.
- The Court did not engage in additional statutory interpretation or jurisprudential debate, relying entirely upon binding intra-court precedent.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought quashing of the GST registration cancellation order.
- Expressed readiness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, and late fee.
- Requested permission to apply for revocation under Section 30 of the UKGST/CGST Act, with direction to the authority to consider the application as per law.
Respondent (State)
- Conceded that the controversy is covered by the High Court’s earlier decision in Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd Vs. Dinesh Chandra Gururani.
Factual Background
The petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled by order dated 01.03.2023. Challenging the cancellation, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash the cancellation and to be allowed to file for revocation under Section 30 of the UKGST/CGST Act. The petitioner undertook to pay all balance statutory dues. During proceedings, it was accepted by both parties that the issue was covered by a prior High Court judgment. The petition was accordingly disposed of in line with the previous precedent.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 30 of the UKGST/CGST Act, 2017, empowers a taxpayer whose registration has been cancelled to apply for revocation of cancellation.
- The judgment references application of Section 30, but contains no new or expansive interpretation; the court merely reaffirms the provision’s availability to a compliant taxpayer, consistent with the prior case decided on 24.02.2025.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded. Both judges were in agreement.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines were introduced in this judgment. The Court disposed of the matter by following its earlier precedent.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law affirmed, and the issue disposed in terms of prior High Court decision.