M/S Shubham Sales vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without first availing the alternative statutory remedies available to it. The Court noted that the petitioner could have filed an application for revocation of the cancellation of registration under Section 30 of the State GST Act, 2017, read with Rule 23 of the State GST Rules, 2017, or filed an appeal against the impugned order under Section 107 of the State GST Act, 2017. Since these remedies were available and not pursued, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The Court observed that the petitioner should file the appropriate application or appeal for redressal of its grievance. If such an application or appeal is filed, it should be decided by the respondent authorities strictly in accordance with law. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shubham Sales, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated May 26, 2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Raipur-5. This order cancelled the petitioner's GST registration, citing the reason that the business was not conducted from the declared place of business or that the place of business was not found. The petitioner contended that it conducts business from the address mentioned in its registration certificate and that the cancellation was done without providing documentary evidence of any inquiry and without affording a proper opportunity of hearing. The respondents argued that the cancellation was based on verification revealing no business activities at the declared place. They further submitted that the petitioner has alternative remedies available under the State GST Act and Rules, namely, filing an application for revocation of cancellation under Section 30 read with Rule 23, or filing an appeal under Section 107.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated May 26, 2025, cancelling the petitioner's GST registration is liable to be set aside and quashed for violation of the State GST Act and Rules, particularly concerning the lack of proper opportunity of hearing and absence of supporting documentary evidence of inquiry. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that its GST registration was cancelled without proper due process. It claimed to conduct business from the declared address and asserted that the cancellation order was passed without providing any verification report or documentary evidence of the inquiry conducted by the respondents. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that it was not afforded a due opportunity of hearing before the cancellation order was issued. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents argued that the cancellation was justified as verification of the petitioner's place of business revealed no business activities. They contended that the petitioner had alternative statutory remedies available, specifically filing an application for revocation of cancellation under Section 30 of the State GST Act, 2017, read with Rule 23 of the State GST Rules, 2017, or filing an appeal against the order under Section 107 of the State GST Act, 2017. The respondents submitted that the writ petition was not maintainable as these alternative remedies were not availed.