Pacific International (Through Proprietor Rahul Nakra) vs. Ds Goods And Services Tax (Ward 64) & Anr.

Facts

The writ petitioner, Pacific International, had its Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration cancelled by an order dated December 26, 2023, passed by the Goods and Services Tax authorities. Following this cancellation, the petitioner filed a rectification application on March 4, 2024. This rectification application remained undisposed of by the competent authority at the time the writ petition was filed before the High Court. The writ petition was filed seeking directions for the disposal of the pending rectification application.

Held

The Court held that since the petitioner's rectification application, filed on March 4, 2024, against the order dated December 26, 2023, cancelling their GST registration, remained undisposed of, it was appropriate to direct the competent authority to examine and dispose of the application. The Court reasoned that the delay in processing the rectification application necessitated judicial intervention to ensure timely administrative action. The Court explicitly stated that all rights and contentions of the respective parties on merits were kept open, meaning the disposal of the rectification application would not pre-judge the substantive issues of the cancellation. The operative direction was to dispose of the rectification application in accordance with law and with due expedition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should direct the competent authority to dispose of a pending rectification application concerning the cancellation of GST registration, when such application has remained undisposed of for an extended period? The petitioner argued that the prolonged delay in disposing of the rectification application, filed on March 4, 2024, against the GST registration cancellation order of December 26, 2023, warranted judicial intervention. They contended that the failure of the revenue authorities to act on their application prejudiced their business operations. The revenue authorities, represented by the Standing Counsel, did not appear to have raised any specific arguments against the disposal of the rectification application, but their role was to respond to the petitioner's plea for intervention.