R K S Industries Private Limited Having Its Office At Mohania vs. State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, R K S Industries Private Limited, through its Director Sandeep Raj, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court. The petitioner sought to quash an order dated 24.02.2022, passed by Respondent No. 3 (Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Purnea), canceling its GST registration under Section 29 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Additionally, the petitioner sought a direction to restore its registration under Section 22 to enable filing of returns and payment of taxes. The petition also challenged an order dated 19.09.2022, passed by Respondent No. 2 (Addl. Commissioner of State Tax, Purnea Division), which dismissed the petitioner's appeal in liminie solely on the ground of delay. The petitioner expressed readiness to complete formalities for restoration of registration.

Held

The Court noted the petitioner's statement expressing readiness to complete the formalities for restoration of GST registration. The Court directed the petitioner to file an application before the competent authority for restoration. Upon receipt of such an application, the competent authority was directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within four weeks. The petitioner undertook to pay all dues/taxes within four weeks of the decision on the restoration application. Crucially, the Court held that the issue of limitation shall not be a bar to the consideration of the restoration application on its merits. The petition was disposed of in these terms.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 24.02.2022, canceling the petitioner's GST registration under Section 29 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed? The petitioner argued for quashing of the cancellation order, seeking restoration of registration to facilitate compliance. The revenue's arguments are not explicitly recorded in the judgment. 2. Whether the order dated 19.09.2022, dismissing the petitioner's appeal in liminie on the ground of delay, is sustainable? The petitioner contended that the appeal was dismissed on the solitary ground of delay, implying a challenge to this procedural dismissal. The revenue's arguments on this issue are not recorded. The petitioner also sought any other relief to which it is entitled.