Shiv Samarth Industries Through Its Prop Sarika Bhausaheb Belure vs. The Commissioner GST And Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Shiv Samarth Industries, through its proprietor Sau. Sarika W/o. Bhausaheb Belure, filed a writ petition challenging multiple orders. These include an order dated 07/11/2024 by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal), an order dated 14.3.2022 by the State Tax Officer cancelling its GST registration, and an order dated 09.01.2024 by the State Tax Officer suspending the registration effective 31.05.2023. The petitioner sought to have these orders quashed and set aside, and to have its GST registration declared valid from 24/11/2021 onwards. The petitioner argued its case was covered by a previous High Court decision in Rohit Enterprises Vs. Commissioner State GST Bhavan and Ors.
Held
The Court held that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision in Rohit Enterprises (Supra), which was also followed in Writ Petition No. 393 of 2024. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to take the same view as the Delhi High Court in M/s. Fone Zone NXT Vs. Commissioner of DGST. The impugned order dated 07.11.2024 was quashed and set aside, and the proceedings were remitted to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal). The Court declared the petitioner's GST registration number 27BQKPB2144K1ZW to be valid from 24.11.2021. The Court imposed a cost of Rs. 5000/- on the petitioner, to be deposited with the respondent No. 2, and stipulated conditions for the petitioner to appear before respondent No. 2 with tax returns, deposit pending dues, interest, penalty, and late fees as per Rule 23(1) of MGST Rules, 2017. The respondent No. 2 was directed to pass an appropriate order within 45 days. The Court noted that it was not inclined to impose heavy costs considering the petitioner is at a development stage and has yet to commence business.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 07/11/2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal) is liable to be quashed and set aside, in light of the petitioner's submission that the case is covered by the decision in Rohit Enterprises Vs. Commissioner State GST Bhavan and Ors.? 2. Whether the order dated 14.3.2022 by the State Tax Officer cancelling the petitioner's registration is liable to be quashed and set aside? 3. Whether the order dated 09.01.2024 by the State Tax Officer suspending the registration effective 31.05.2023 is liable to be quashed and set aside? 4. Whether the petitioner's GST registration number 27BQKPB2144K1ZW is valid from 24/11/2021 onwards? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner contended that its case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Rohit Enterprises Vs. Commissioner State GST Bhavan and Ors.; 2023 CJ(Bom) 966. Respondents' Contention: The learned AGP for the State relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in M/s. Fone Zone NXT Vs. Commissioner of DGST and a coordinate bench decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 393 of 2024; M/s. Sambhaji Multi Services Vs. The Commissioner, State GST Bhavan and Ors., arguing that in similar fact situations, petitions have been rejected.
Sections Cited
Rule 23(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
952-Dispose of IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 14089 OF 2024 Shiv Samarth Industries, (Reg. no. UDYAM-MH-24-0005650) MIDC Area, Plot No. A 76, Aurangabad Road, Dharashiv, Maharashtra-413501. Through its proprietor, Sau. Sarika W/o. Bhausaheb Belure, Age: 36 years, Occ: Household/Business, R/o: Belure Residence, Sanja Bypass Road, near Lal Hanuman, Osmanabad/Dharashiv, Tq. & Dist.: Osmanabad/Dharashiv. ...PETITIONER ...VERSUS...
The Commissioner GST, State GST Bhavan, Railway Station Road, Aurangabad.
The Dy. Commissioner, State Tax (Appeal) Maharashtra State Goods and Service Tax., OSMANABAD_701 State Maharashtra, Zone- CH. SAMBHAJI NAGAR, Division- Nanded.
The State Tax Officer, Solapur Road, OSMANABAD/DHARASHIV 413501. ...RESPONDENTS ________________________________________________________________ Adv. S. V. Suryawanshi h/f. Adv. Pandurang S. Koshti for the Petitioner/Applicant Mr. A. V. Lavte, AGP for State ________________________________________________________________ ksk/
1/5 2026:BHC-AUG:17899-DB
952-Dispose of WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1242 OF 2026 IN WP/14089/2024 ... CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 17.04.2026 O R A L J U D G M E N T : [Per Nitin B. Suryawanshi, J.] . Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties.
The petitioner has put forth following prayers : "B) That the order dt 07/11/2024 passed in Appeal Reference Number - ZD271124016421Y Dy. Commissioner (Appeal) DCST (APPEALS): SOLAPUR: Kolhapur: Maharashtra may kindly be quashed and set aside. C) That the order passed by the State Tax Officer dt. 14.3.2022 of cancellation of registration may kindly be quashed and set aside. D) That, the Order dtd. 09.01.2024 passed by the State Tax Officer suspending the registration w.e.f. 31.05.2023 may kindly be quashed and set aside. E) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly hold that, the petitioner registration no. 27BQKPB2144K1ZW is valid from 24/11/2021 onwards."
Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that this case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Rohit Enterprises Vs. Commissioner State GST Bhavan and Ors.; 2023 CJ(Bom) 966. ksk/
2/5
952-Dispose of 4. Learned AGP by relying on the decision of Delhi High Court in M/s. Fone Zone NXT Vs. Commissioner of DGST in W.P.(C) 888/2026 and other connected matters submitted that in similar fact situation, the Delhi High Court has rejected the petition. He has also relied upon the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 393 of 2024; M/s. Sambhaji Multi Services Vs. The Commissioner, State GST Bhavan and Ors.
Upon hearing learned advocate for the petitioner and learned AGP for State, and upon going through the decisions cited before us, we are of the view that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision in Rohit Enterprises (Supra). This Court has also followed the said decision in Writ Petition No. 393 of 2024. 6. So far as the decisions relied upon by learned AGP, since we have followed our own decision, we are unable to take the same view as is taken by the Delhi High Court.
In Writ Petition No. 393 of 2024, this Court has imposed cost of Rs. 5000/- as token amount/cost on the petitioner therein while allowing the petition. We are inclined to follow the same course.
We, however, are not inclined to accept the submission of learned AGP that heavy cost be imposed on the petitioner, considering ksk/
3/5
952-Dispose of the fact that the petitioner is at development stage and has yet to commence its business. In absence of GST registration, the petitioner is not in a position to commence the business activities.
In the result, Writ Petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 07.11.2024 stands quashed and set aside and the proceedings are remitted to respondent No. 2 - Authority. Writ Petition is allowed on following conditions : i. The petitioner will deposit cost of Rs. 5000/- with respondent No. 2 on or before 11.05.2026. ii. The petitioner shall appear before respondent No. 2 on or before 04.05.2026 along with tax returns of six months and shall deposit entire pending dues along with applicable interest, penalty, late fees in terms of Rule 23(1) of MGST Rules, 2017. iii. Respondent No. 2 shall consider the record and by following the due procedure laid down in law, pass appropriate order on such conditions, as the rules would permit the authority. iv. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 45 days from today. ksk/
4/5
952-Dispose of 10. We hold and declare that the registration No. 27BQKPB2144K1ZW in the name of the petitioner is valid from 24.11.2021. 11. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
Pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. [VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.] [NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.] ksk/
5/5
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.