Prem Pratap Ray vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Prem Pratap Ray, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging two orders. The first order, dated 31.07.2022, was passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes (Respondent No. 3) cancelling the petitioner's GST registration under Rule 22(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The petitioner contended this order was mechanical, non-speaking, and violated principles of natural justice. The second order, dated 29.07.2025, was passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeals) (Respondent No. 2) rejecting the petitioner's appeal against the cancellation order on grounds of delay, under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner sought quashing of both orders and a declaration that the cancellation order was unsustainable.
Held
The Court granted the petitioner liberty to challenge the appellate order dated 29.07.2025, passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeals), by availing the remedy provided under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of. The Court did not explicitly rule on the merits of the cancellation order or the appellate order concerning the delay, but rather facilitated the petitioner's pursuit of further appellate remedies. The specific findings on the arguments regarding the mechanical nature of the cancellation order and the validity of the delay in appeal are not detailed as the petition was disposed of based on the liberty granted.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 31.07.2022, cancelling the petitioner's GST registration by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes, is liable to be quashed for being mechanical, non-speaking, and violative of the principles of natural justice, as argued by the petitioner. The petitioner contends that no adequate opportunity of hearing was provided before passing an order with drastic consequences. The revenue's arguments are not recorded in the judgment. 2. Whether the appellate order dated 29.07.2025, rejecting the petitioner's appeal on grounds of delay by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeals), is valid. The petitioner sought to challenge this order, but the court granted liberty to pursue a further remedy under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The revenue's arguments are not recorded in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 112, Rule 22(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH) 2 08-04-2026 The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:- “1. a) For issuance of a writ or order or a direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the order dated 31.07.2022 passed in form GST REG 19 by the respondent number 3 whereby the registration of the petitioner has been cancelled in terms of rules 22(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 2017" for short) by a completely mechanical, non-speaking and silent order which is violative of the principles of natural justice;
2/3 b) For further issuance of a writ or order or a direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the order dated 29.07.2025 issued vide memo number 611 by the respondent number 2 under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act 2017 for short) whereby
the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of cancellation of registration dated 31.07.2022 has been rejected on grounds of delay; c) For further restraining the respondents from determining any liability of tax, interest and penalty and also taking any coercive action against the petitioner on account of cancellation of registration in terms of the order dated 31.07.2022 passed by the respondent number 3 in most unreasonable,
arbitrary
and mechanical manner; d) For further holding and a declaration that the impugned order cancelling registration of the petitioner passed by the respondent number 3 is mechanical, non-speaking and in teeth of principles of natural justice as no adequate opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner before such an order having drastic consequences was passed and therefore the same is unsustainable in the eye of law.”
At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioner to challenge the appellate order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner of State 3/3 Taxes (Appeals), Patna East Division, Patna, by availing the remedy provided for under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Liberty, so sought, is granted.
Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of.
S.Sb/- (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.