Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1755 (UTT)

M/S TALIB CONTRACTOR v. COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, DEHRADUN

WPMB/73/2026 · 2026-02-16

Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, Subhash Upadhyay

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:966-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY Writ Petition (M/B) No.73 of 2026 16 February, 2026 M/s Talib Contractor ----Petitioner Versus Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Dehradun & Another ----Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Ms. Sukhwani Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the respondent. JUDGMENT : (per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta C. J.) 1. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 25.03.2025 cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner firm on the ground that it had failed to file the returns within prescribed period. 2. 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 authority has been directed to decide the application for revocation of the cancellation order. The operative part 1 2026:UHC:966-DB 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.” 3. It is urged that similar liberty may be granted to the petitioner. 4. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has no objection in case the present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as WPMB No.39 of 2025. 6. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.) (SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 16.02.2026 Rajni 2 RAJINI GUSAI N Digitally signed by RAJINI GUSAIN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876d b48448ac3701a9ae475a2547e4b7f 1d9b1f17d01342, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A22 22B4DF4FC80D4557562F95BEBA0 13F530616A158A0A878BD8, cn=RAJINI GUSAIN Date: 2026.02.17 10:26:11 +05'30'