Faizal Shekh Mansuri Vs Commissioner (Uttarakhand High Court)
Uttarakhand High Court heard a petition filed by Faizal Shekh Mansuri challenging the cancellation of his GST registration. The petitioner sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, requesting the court to quash the cancellation order dated 12.09.2023. He expressed willingness to clear all outstanding tax dues, interest, and penalties and requested permission to file a representation before the competent authority for reconsideration. He further sought a directive for the tax authorities to review his application in accordance with the law.
With the consent of both parties, the court disposed of the writ petition with a directive that the petitioner must deposit all outstanding dues and submit his application within one week. The tax authority was instructed to consider the application and pass an appropriate order within two weeks of receiving the certified copy of the court’s order. This ruling allows the petitioner an opportunity to reinstate his GST registration, provided he fulfills all financial obligations.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Present Writ Pet it ion has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers: –
“ (i) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling the record of the case and quash the cancellation of GST Registration order dated 12/ 09/ 2023 ( Annexure No. 1 to W.P. ) as petitioner is ready to pay all the balance tax, interest on it and late fee if any.
(ii) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandam us perm it t ing the petitioner to prefer a representation before the Respondent 2 against the order of the cancellation of the GSTI N 05ERRPM6378F1Z6 of the Petitioner and further direct the Respondent No. 2 to consider the application of the Petitioner in accordance with law.
(iii) Issue any other writ order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper, in the circum stances of the present case.
( iv) Award the cost to the petitioner throughout.”
2. Heard Mr. Tarun Pande, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for respondents.
