Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 477 (UTT)

GAYATRI TRADING COMPANY CRUSHER v. COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

WPMB/181/2026 · 2026-03-31

Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, Subhash Upadhyay

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:2230-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY 31st March 2026 WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 181 OF 2026 Gayatri Trading Company Crusher …...Petitioner. Versus Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax and Another ….Respondents. Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Agarwal, learned counsel. Counsel for the respondents : Ms. Riddhi Joshi, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel. JUDGMENT :(per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.) 1. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 23.07.2025 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 1 2026:UHC:2230-DB 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.” 3. It is urged that similar liberty may be granted to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents/CGST on whom notice of the instant writ petition was served initially, in order to assist the Court, states that the controversy is covered by the order passed in the afore-said case. 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. Dated: 31st March, 2026 SS SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. 2 SUKHBANT SINGH Digitally signed by SUKHBANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd129a8a638 0d49b1885e628615, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEBD2B7D72C 42261361AED33172F152148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH Date: 2026.04.01 12:48:25 +05'30'