M/S Dutta Medicose vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The petitioner had statutory remedies available under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, 2017, specifically the remedy of appeal under Section 107. The Court noted that the petitioner filed the writ application after the expiry of the time limit prescribed for filing an appeal under Section 107. Citing its own previous order in M K Traders Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 6180 of 2026), the Court reiterated that writ applications filed beyond the statutory period for appeal and without exceptional circumstances should not be entertained. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders in its writ jurisdiction. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to file a final return under Section 45 of the GST Act, 2017, and to apply for fresh registration in accordance with the law.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Dutta Medicose, a proprietorship firm, had its GST registration cancelled by an order dated 29.11.2019, passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Katihar Circle. The petitioner contends that this order was ex-parte, passed without providing an opportunity of hearing, and that the cancellation order was non-speaking, with no mention of pending tax amounts or the specific reasons for cancellation. The petitioner also claims to have furnished pending returns after the cancellation, but was unable to file subsequent returns due to portal restrictions. The petitioner sought setting aside of the cancellation order and restoration of its GST registration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Katihar Circle, vide order dated 29.11.2019, was validly passed without affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to restoration of its GST registration, as sought by the petitioner? 3. Whether the writ application is maintainable given the availability of statutory remedies and the expiry of the appeal period, as contended by the State? Petitioner's arguments: The cancellation order was ex-parte, non-speaking, and passed without a proper hearing. The petitioner has since furnished pending returns and is willing to file any further returns or pay any assessed tax. The petitioner seeks restoration of registration. Respondent's (State) arguments: The petitioner has adequate statutory remedies available, including revocation of cancellation and appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. The petitioner failed to avail these remedies within the prescribed time limit, rendering the writ application non-maintainable. The petitioner also has the remedy of filing a final return under Section 45 of the GST Act, 2017.