Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Mughlai Chicken, sought relief before the Uttarakhand High Court in respect of cancellation of its GST registration, relying on the Court's own consistent line of orders in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025 and Writ Petition (M/B) No. 79 of 2025, both of which permitted similarly placed taxpayers to apply for revocation of cancellation within a fixed period upon furnishing all pending returns and depositing unpaid tax, interest and penalty. Both counsel for the petitioner and the State Brief Holder agreed that the petitioner was similarly situated and that the same relief should follow.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioner, whose GST registration was cancelled, was similarly situated to taxpayers previously granted revocation relief in Writ Petition (M/B) Nos. 39 and 79 of 2025.
  2. Whether the same terms of relief, permitting an application for revocation within a fixed period subject to compliance conditions, should be extended to the petitioner.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner's facts were materially identical to those in the Court's earlier rulings, and counsel submitted that the same relief, permitting an application for revocation of cancellation on furnishing pending returns and paying outstanding dues, should be granted.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The State's Brief Holder agreed that the petitioner was similarly situated to the earlier cases and had no objection to the same relief being extended.

Court Order / Findings

  • Since both counsel agreed the petitioner was similarly placed as the taxpayers in the Court's earlier orders, the Court simply extended the same relief without need for fresh reasoning.
  • Where a taxpayer's GST registration cancellation arises from the same category of default (failure to furnish returns) as previously and repeatedly considered by the Court, relief permitting a time-bound revocation application, conditional on clearing all outstanding tax, interest and penalty, follows as a matter of settled practice rather than requiring re-litigation of the underlying facts.
  • The writ petition was disposed of on the terms of the order dated 24.02.2025 in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 39 of 2025, permitting the petitioner to apply for revocation of the cancellation order, with the competent authority to consider such application within four weeks of a compliant application being filed within two weeks.

Important Clarification

  • The Uttarakhand High Court has developed a settled, almost templated approach to GST registration-cancellation cases arising from non-filing of returns: revocation is permitted on a short compliance timeline rather than treated as a permanent business-ending consequence.
  • Consensus between counsel on similarly-situated facts allows for swift disposal without the need to independently re-examine each cancellation order's underlying record.
  • This body of orders collectively signals that Indian courts increasingly view GST registration cancellation for return-filing defaults as a curable, not punitive, consequence.

Sections Involved

  • Section 29, CGST Act, 2017 – governs cancellation of GST registration for continuous default in filing returns.
  • Rule 23, CGST Rules, 2017 – prescribes the procedure for seeking revocation of cancellation of registration.

Decision – In Favour of

The decision favours the assessee. The petitioner was permitted to apply for revocation of its cancelled registration, with the competent authority directed to decide the application within four weeks of compliance.

Case Details

High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital; Writ Petition (M/B) No. 324 of 2025 (Case No. 2025:UHC:4506-DB); Mughlai Chicken vs Commissioner State Goods and Services Tax and Another; Coram: Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra; Decided on 04.06.2025.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.