Usaid Ahmad vs. State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had not availed the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. Furthermore, the writ application was filed after the expiry of the time limit prescribed for filing an appeal under Section 107. Citing its previous order in M K Traders vs State of Bihar and Ors. (CWJC No. 6180 of 2026), the Court observed that writ petitions filed beyond the statutory period for appeal and without exceptional circumstances ought not to be entertained. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 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 law.

Facts

The petitioner, Usaid Ahmad, proprietor of Muskan Int. Udyog, engaged in the brick kiln business, was registered under the GST Act, 2017. He received a show cause notice dated 13.08.2024 for non-furnishing of returns for six months, to which he failed to reply within the stipulated 30 days. Consequently, his GST registration was cancelled by an order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Madhubani. The petitioner claims the cancellation order was non-speaking, passed without adequate opportunity of hearing, and prevented him from filing subsequent returns. He filed a writ application seeking to quash the cancellation order and restore his registration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 20.09.2024 cancelling the petitioner's GST registration under Section 29 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is liable to be set aside for being a non-speaking order, passed without service of notice in prescribed modes under Section 169 of the Act, and in contravention of Rule 22(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, thereby violating principles of natural justice and Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The cancellation order was non-speaking, passed without adequate opportunity of hearing, and violated statutory provisions and constitutional rights. The GST portal did not permit filing returns after cancellation. Revenue's arguments: The petitioner has adequate statutory remedies available, including revocation of cancellation and appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. The petitioner failed to avail these remedies, and the writ application was filed beyond the statutory period for appeal without exceptional circumstances.