Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 2869 (UTT)

MOHD ASIF v. COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICES TAX COMMISSIONERATE

WPMB/246/2026 · 2026-04-09

Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, Subhash Upadhyay

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:2583-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY 09TH APRIL, 2026 WRIT PETITION (M/B) No. 246 OF 2026 M/s Mohd. Asif GSTIN (05ANUPA1931B1ZI) …….Petitioner. Versus Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate and another. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Paritosh Dalakoti, learned counsel Counsel for the respondents : Sri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel. JUDGMENT : (Per Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.) 1. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 01.04.2022 cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner-firm on the ground that it has failed to file the returns within the 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 an 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 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.” 2026:UHC:2583-DB 2 3. It is urged that similar liberty may be granted to the petitioner. 4. Sri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the respondents, 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. Dt: 9th April, 2026 Rathour PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR Digitally signed by PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323779d9e3aeb109 7d17dbb53d481cabd25946eed, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF92A40CC6179B8 E010331BA695239171F906FD5C45C4E8, cn=PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2026.04.10 15:26:21 +05'30'