M/S Paidar Cardboard Th.Its Prop vs. Union Territory Of J And K Th. Commissioner (State Taxes Department) And Others

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority for the restoration of its GST registration within ten days. The Competent Authority was directed to restore the registration immediately, subject to the petitioner completing all requisite formalities, including filing returns and depositing taxes, penalty, and interest within ten days. The Court explicitly stated that this order would cease to operate if the petitioner failed to comply within the stipulated period. The Court clarified that it had not delved into the legal issue of the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226, nor did it express any opinion on the maintainability of such petitions notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy. The decision was based on the peculiar facts and circumstances and analogy with previously decided cases.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Paidar Cardboard, is aggrieved by an order dated 14.09.2023 passed by the State Tax Officer, Circle Pulwama, cancelling its GST registration. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, State Taxes, Appeals-II Kashmir Division, Srinagar, which was rejected on 11.11.2025, holding it to be barred by limitation. Consequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, seeking restoration of its GST registration. The Court noted that similar cases had been decided by directing restoration of registration subject to the petitioner depositing tax, penalty, and interest, and filing pending returns, based on concessions from the respondents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal, particularly when the appeal was rejected on grounds of limitation? 2. Whether the petitioner's GST registration should be restored, considering the circumstances and the precedent set in similar cases? The petitioner argued for the restoration of its GST registration, likely implicitly relying on the principle of equity and the court's power to grant relief in exceptional circumstances, especially given the procedural history. The respondents, through the Sr. AAG, raised a legal issue regarding the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 when an alternative remedy of appeal exists and was pursued, albeit unsuccessfully due to limitation. The respondents also likely contended that the petitioner failed to comply with statutory requirements, leading to the cancellation of registration.