Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4698 (UTT)

MS HOTEL DEVBHOOMI v. SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

WPMB/124/2026 · 2026-02-26

Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, Subhash Upadhyay

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:1331-DB I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL HON’BLE THE CHI EF JUSTI CE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE SUBHASH UPADHYAY W RI T PETI TI ON ( M/ B) NO. 1 2 4 OF 2 0 2 6 2 6 TH FEBRUARY, 2 0 2 6 M/ s Hotel Devbhoomi …… Petitioner Versus Superintendent, Central Goods and Services Tax …… Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Imran Ali Khan, learned counsel through video conferencing Counsel for the respondent : Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel Th e Cou r t m ade t h e follow in g: JUDGMENT: ( per Sr i Man oj Ku m ar Gu pt a, C.J.) 1) The petitioner has assailed the order dated 16.01.2025 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 1 2026:UHC:1331-DB authority has been directed to decide the application for revocation of the cancellation order. The operative part of the order passed in 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(s), if any, also stand disposed of. _______________________ MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. Dt: 26TH FEBRUARY, 2026 Negi 2 HIMANS HU NEGI Digitally signed by HIMANSHU NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13aaf 116e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90d5757, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC51 A722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C18DB 2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2026.02.26 16:05:38 +05'30'