Mashooq Ahmad Sofi vs. Ut Of J And K Th, Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department, Jammu And Others

Held

The Court disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority for the restoration of his GST number. Upon such approach, the Competent Authority is directed to restore the GST number immediately, subject to the completion of all requisite formalities. The petitioner is mandated to file all pending returns and deposit the taxes, penalty, and interest within seven days from the date of the order. Failure to comply with this condition will render the order inoperative. The Court explicitly stated that it had not gone into the legal issue raised by the respondents regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, nor should this order be construed as an expression of opinion on the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 when an alternative remedy exists. The decision was based on the peculiar facts and circumstances and analogy with previously decided cases.

Facts

The petitioner, Mashooq Ahmed Sofi, is aggrieved by the cancellation of his GST registration on February 1, 2024. He filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Additional Commissioner State Tax Department Jammu, which was dismissed on March 15, 2026, solely on the grounds of being barred by limitation. Consequently, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking restoration of his GST registration. The respondents are the Union Territory of J&K and others.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, can direct the restoration of GST registration when the statutory appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation, considering the availability of alternative remedies? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner seeks restoration of his GST registration, relying on previous High Court orders in similar cases where registration was restored subject to the petitioner's undertaking to deposit tax, penalty, and interest. The petitioner's case is stated to be identical to those previously decided. Revenue's contention: The Senior Additional Advocate General for the respondents raised a legal issue regarding the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 when an alternative remedy of appeal is available. However, the Court did not delve into this legal issue.