Sanjay Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. The petitioner was directed to file an application for restoration of his GST registration before the competent authority. Upon receipt of this application, the competent authority was mandated to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, not later than four weeks from the date of receipt. The petitioner undertook to pay all dues and taxes within four weeks of the decision on his restoration application. Crucially, the Court directed that the issue of limitation shall not impede the consideration of the petitioner's restoration application on its merits. The Court did not explicitly decide on the validity of the cancellation order or the appellate order but provided a procedural path for resolution.

Facts

The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar, challenged an order-in-appeal dated September 17, 2022, passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal), Purnea Division, which dismissed his appeal on grounds of delay. This appeal was against an ex-parte order-in-original dated January 3, 2022, issued by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Purnea, cancelling the petitioner's GST registration under Section 29 of the GST Act. The cancellation followed a show cause notice dated December 2, 2021, suspending the registration. The petitioner sought quashing of these orders and the restoration of his GST registration. He expressed readiness to complete restoration formalities and pay dues.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order-in-appeal dated 17/09/2022, dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the ground of delay, and the consequential Form GST APL-02, are liable to be quashed? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). 2. Whether the ex-parte order-in-original dated 03/01/2022, cancelling the petitioner's GST registration under Section 29 of the GST Act, is liable to be quashed? (Question of law and fact, concerning the validity of the cancellation order). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued for the quashing of the appellate order and the cancellation order, seeking restoration of his GST registration. He stated his willingness to complete the necessary formalities for restoration and to pay all dues. The petitioner implicitly argued that the delay in filing the appeal should not be a bar to a decision on merits, especially if he is willing to comply with all requirements. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (State of Bihar, Additional Commissioner, Joint Commissioner).