Ramesh Gandhi vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to file a fresh application for restoration of registration before the competent authority. Upon receipt of this application, the competent authority was directed to pass appropriate orders within four weeks, considering the application on its merits and not allowing the issue of limitation to impede consideration. The petitioner undertook to pay all dues/taxes within four weeks of the decision on the restoration application. The Court did not explicitly rule on the validity of the ex-parte cancellation order or the appellate order but facilitated a process for potential restoration. The issue of bank account freezing and coercive recovery was implicitly addressed by the direction to consider restoration.

Facts

The petitioner, Ramesh Gandhi, proprietor of M/s Bindhya Pharma, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an order dated November 7, 2022, passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals), Patna East Division. This order rejected the petitioner's application for revocation of a cancellation order. The original cancellation order, dated January 3, 2022, was passed ex-parte by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Kadamkuan Circle, Patna, leading to the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration. The petitioner also sought quashing of the ex-parte cancellation order, restoration of registration, de-freezing of bank accounts, and a restraint on coercive recovery actions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex-parte order dated 03.01.2022 passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Kadamkuan Circle, Patna, cancelling the petitioner's GST registration, was valid, considering the petitioner's claim of not being given a proper opportunity to file a reply and be heard? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and relevant GST provisions). 2. Whether the order dated 07.11.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals), Patna East Division, rejecting the application for revocation of cancellation, was justified? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the cancellation of registration was ex-parte and without proper opportunity of hearing. The petitioner expressed readiness to complete formalities for restoration. Revenue's Contention: No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue in the judgment.