Uttarakhand High Court
WPMB/593/2026 of M/S SNOWLINE TRAVEL VENTURES LLP Vs COMMISSIONER STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX on 23 July 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY July 23, 2026 Writ Petition (M/B) No.593 of 2026 M/s Snowline Travel Ventures LLP ----Petitioner Versus Commissioner, State Goods and
UKHC010128012026
2026:UHC:6250-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY
July 23, 2026
Writ Petition (M/B) No.593 of 2026
M/s Snowline Travel Ventures LLP
----Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax & Another
----Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Ashish Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Puja Banga, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondents through Video Conferencing.
JUDGMENT : (per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, C. J.)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The present petition has been filed for quashing the show cause notice dated 06.11.2024 and the order passed in pursuance thereof dated 26.12.2024 cancelling the registration of the petitioner firm on the ground; “filing NIL return from last several months”.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that filing of NIL return could not be a ground under the statute for cancelling the registration. He has invited our attention towards Section 29 of GST Act which invests power in the proper officer to cancel the registration. The said power can be exercised only in the circumstances enumerated under Sub Section (2) of Section 29 and which does not
UKHC010128012026
2026:UHC:6250-DB
contemplate cancelation of the registration on the ground of filing of NIL return.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on Judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kali Shanker Enterprises vs. Additional Commissioner, Goods and Service Tax Officer, the Chief Commissioner, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2024 (1) TMI 430, in support of his submission.
4. We agree with the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court that filing of NIL return is not a ground contemplated under Sub Section (2) of Section 29 of the Act. Consequently, the impugned order as well as show cause notice cannot survive and are accordingly, quashed. Writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
5. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 23.07.2026 Rajni