Swastik Plastics Through Its Proprietor Himanshu Bansal vs. Avato Ward 57 State Goods And Service Taxe & Anr.

Held

The Court directed the Petitioner to appear before the Department on January 6, 2026. The Department was ordered to take a decision on the Petitioner's application for cancellation of GST registration by January 31, 2026. The Court explicitly stated that all rights and remedies of the Petitioner were left open. The petition was disposed of in terms of these directions. The reasoning for this decision is based on ensuring expeditious disposal of the pending application by the authorities, as indicated by the Respondent's counsel. No specific GST provisions were discussed in detail, as the matter was resolved by directing the authorities to act within a stipulated timeframe. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The Petitioner, Swastik Plastics, filed a writ petition seeking directions to the Respondents to allow its application for cancellation of GST registration, filed on September 25, 2024. The Petitioner had previously received a Show Cause Notice (Form DRC-01) on February 2, 2023, to which it replied on March 16, 2023. However, no decision had been taken by the Department on the cancellation application. The Respondent's counsel stated that a decision would be taken expeditiously. The Court directed the Petitioner to appear before the Department on January 6, 2026, and ordered the Department to decide on the cancellation application by January 31, 2026. All rights and remedies of the Petitioner were left open.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the Respondent authorities to decide on the Petitioner's application for cancellation of GST registration, filed on September 25, 2024, considering the delay in decision-making after a Show Cause Notice was issued on February 2, 2023, and replied to on March 16, 2023. The Petitioner argued that despite filing an application for cancellation of its GST registration and having responded to a Show Cause Notice, the Department had failed to take a decision, necessitating judicial intervention under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The Respondent, represented by counsel, submitted that a decision on the Petitioner's application would be taken expeditiously.