Garg Coal Traders vs. The Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Garg Coal Traders, through its proprietor Anoop Kumar Garg, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The cancellation order, dated 01-10-2024, was passed ex-parte by the Superintendent CGST and CX, Saharsa Range (Respondent No. 4) under Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Rule 22 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, citing grounds under Rule 21(a). The petitioner also challenged an appellate order dated 13-08-2025, which rejected its appeal. The appeal was dismissed primarily on the ground of being filed beyond the statutory period of limitation. The petitioner sought quashing of both orders, restoration of its registration retrospectively from 01-07-2017, and a declaration that the cancellation violated principles of natural justice.
Held
The Court noted that the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of delay, as it was filed beyond the period of limitation provided under the statute. Consequently, the petitioner sought to challenge the appellate order dated 13.08.2025 by availing the remedy provided under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue this remedy. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to maintain the status quo for a period of eight weeks. The specific issues regarding the ex-parte cancellation and violation of natural justice were not directly decided by the High Court in this writ petition, as the petitioner was granted liberty to pursue a further statutory remedy.
Key Issues
1. Whether the ex-parte order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration under Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017, on grounds of Rule 21(a) is violative of the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the appellate order rejecting the petitioner's appeal due to delay is sustainable? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the cancellation of registration was ex-parte and violative of natural justice. They sought restoration of their registration to facilitate business transactions. They also challenged the appellate order which dismissed their appeal on grounds of delay. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue or state. However, the dismissal of the appeal on the ground of delay implies that the appellate authority upheld the limitation period as a valid ground for rejection.
Sections Cited
Section 29, Rule 22, Rule 21(a), Section 112
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH) 3 13-03-2026 The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- “(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the ex-parte order bearing reference number ZA101024002440R dated 01-10-2024 passed by the respondent No.-4 under section 29 of the 2/3 Central Goods and Services Tac Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) read with Rule 22 of The Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules 2017” for short) whereby the registration of the petitioner has been cancelled on grounds of rule 21 (a) of the Rules, 2017. (ii) For further issuance of a writ or order or a direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 13-08-2025 passed in Case No.- GST- 513/Pat/2025-26 (Appeal ARN- AD100725002561P) whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected; (iii) For further issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents especially the respondent No.4 to restore the registration which has been cancelled retrospectively with effect from 01-07-2017 in order to revalidate the business transactions carried out by the petitioner since 28-02-2022 till date. (iv) For further holding and a declaring that the cancellation of registration of the petitioner by virtue of an ex-parte order passed by the respondent no.-4 is violative of the principles of natural justice;”
Admittedly, the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of delay inasmuch as the same was filed beyond the period of limitation provided for under the statute.
In view of the aforesaid, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to challenge the appellate order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), 3/3 Office of the Commissioner (Appeals) of Customs, Central GST & Central Excise, Patna by availing the remedy provided for under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Liberty, so sought, is granted.
Accordingly, present writ petition stands disposed of.
It is needless to state that status quo, existing as on today, shall be maintained for a period of eight weeks.
GAURAV S./- (Mohit Kumar Shah, J) (Arun Kumar Jha, J) U
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.