M/S. Muxlyer Telecom Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable in the writ jurisdiction because the petitioner had not availed the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. Furthermore, the writ application was filed beyond the time limit prescribed for filing an appeal under Section 107. The Court referred to its own order in M K Traders vs State of Bihar and Ors, CWJC No. 6180 of 2026, which stated that writ petitions filed beyond the statutory period for appeal and without exceptional circumstances ought not to be entertained. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the writ petition but granted the petitioner liberty to file a final return under Section 45 of the GST Act, 2017, and to apply for fresh registration in accordance with law.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Muxlyer Telecom Private Limited, filed a writ application challenging the cancellation of its GST registration by the competent authority on September 27, 2024, effective from the same date. The cancellation was based on the ground of non-furnishing of returns for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner received a show cause notice on June 11, 2024, under Rule 22(1) of the BGST/CGST Rules, 2017, and was granted thirty days to reply. The petitioner contends that the cancellation order was non-speaking and passed without an adequate opportunity of hearing, preventing them from filing subsequent returns. The State argued that the petitioner has statutory remedies available, including revocation of cancellation and appeal, which were not availed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation order dated 27.09.2024, passed by the competent authority, is a non-speaking order and was passed without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, thereby violating principles of natural justice, under the CGST Act, 2017 and BGST Rules, 2017? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief under writ jurisdiction despite the availability of statutory remedies under the CGST Act, 2017, particularly when the writ petition was filed beyond the statutory period for appeal? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was non-speaking and issued without adequate opportunity of hearing. They also submitted that they were unable to file subsequent returns due to the portal not permitting filings after registration cancellation. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State contended that the petitioner had adequate statutory remedies under the CGST Act, including revocation of cancellation and appeal under Section 107. They argued that the petitioner failed to avail these remedies and therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained, citing the case of M K Traders vs State of Bihar and Ors.