Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6543 (UTT)

SHAHJAD v. COMMISSIONER STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX COMMISSIONER

WPMB/458/2026 · 2026-06-04

Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, Subhash Upadhyay

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:4483-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY 04TH JUNE, 2026 WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 458 OF 2026 Shahjad …...Petitioner. Versus Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax & another ….Respondents. Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms. Shalini Thakral and Mr. Vishal Kumar Nautiyal, learned counsel. Counsel for the Respondents : Ms. Puja Banga, learned Standing Counsel. JUDGMENT :(per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.) 1. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 05.07.2025 cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner on the ground that he 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 of the order passed in the said writ petition is as follows:- 1 2026:UHC:4483-DB “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. Ms. Puja Banga, learned counsel for the Revenue admits 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. SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. Dated: 04th June, 2026 NISHANT 2