M/S Dixon Engineering Th Harjot Singh vs. Ut Of Ladakh Th Commissioner States Taxes Department Leh And Others
Held
The Court disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to approach the competent authority for the restoration of its GST number within ten days. The competent authority is directed to restore the petitioner's GST number immediately, subject to the completion of all requisite formalities. The petitioner must then file returns and deposit all taxes, penalties, and interest within seven days. The order will cease to operate if the petitioner fails to comply within the stipulated period. The Court noted that this decision was based on the peculiar facts and circumstances and analogy with earlier decided cases, and it should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 when an alternative remedy of appeal is available. No specific issue was left undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Dixon Engineering, had its GST registration cancelled by an order dated 30.10.2023, following a show cause notice dated 16.12.2021, to which the petitioner did not respond. The petitioner's subsequent appeal against the cancellation order was dismissed as barred by limitation. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking restoration of its GST registration. The petitioner's counsel stated that the petitioner undertakes to deposit all outstanding taxes, penalties, and interest under the GST Act, 2017, if the registration is restored. Reliance was placed on a previous judgment in Sheikh Mohammad Yousuf v. UT of J&K and others.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner's GST registration, cancelled due to non-response to a show cause notice and subsequent dismissal of appeal as time-barred, can be restored? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the GST Act, 2017). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner undertakes to deposit all taxes, penalties, and interest due. They rely on the precedent set in Sheikh Mohammad Yousuf v. UT of J&K and others, where restoration was granted subject to such an undertaking. Revenue's contention: No specific argument is recorded for the revenue or state in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER
2025
Petitioner was issued show cause notice dated 16.12.2021, for cancellation of his GST registration under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner did not respond to the said notice, which led to the cancellation of his GST registration vide order dated 30.10.2023. 2. The petitioner preferred an appeal against order dated 30.10.2023, which was also dismissed on the ground that same is barred by limitation. The petitioner, thus, has approached this Court to restore of his GST registration cancelled vide order dated 30.10.2023. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is under instructions of the petitioner to make statement before this Court that he undertakes to deposit the taxes, penalt
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.