Umar Farooq vs. Union Territory Of J And K And Ors. (Finance / State Taxes)

Held

The Court disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority for registration within seven days. The Competent Authority was directed to restore the petitioner's GST number immediately, subject to the completion of all requisite formalities. The petitioner was also directed to file returns and deposit taxes, penalty, and interest within seven days. The order stated that it would cease to operate if the petitioner failed to comply within the stipulated period. The Court explicitly mentioned that it had not gone into the legal issue raised by the respondents regarding the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226, and that nothing in the order should be construed as an expression of opinion on the maintainability of the writ petition despite the availability of an alternative remedy. The case was disposed of based on peculiar facts and analogy with previously decided cases.

Facts

The petitioner, Umar Farooq, is aggrieved by the cancellation of his GST registration on March 1, 2024. He filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, State Taxes, Appeals-II, Kashmir Division, Srinagar, which was dismissed on April 8, 2025, as being barred by limitation. Consequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking restoration of his GST registration. The Court noted that similar cases had been decided by directing the Competent Authority to restore registration upon the petitioner's undertaking to deposit tax, penalty, and interest, provided they complied with the GST Act, 2017, by filing returns and paying dues. The Court referred to previous orders in WP(C) 873/2024 and WP(C) 182/2024.

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, given that the appeal was dismissed on limitation grounds? 2. Whether the GST registration of the petitioner should be restored, subject to compliance with statutory obligations? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner sought restoration of his GST registration, relying on previous orders of the High Court in similar matters where registration was restored upon undertaking to deposit dues and file returns. The petitioner implicitly argued for the maintainability of the writ petition by approaching the High Court directly after the dismissal of his appeal on limitation. Revenue's Arguments: The respondents, represented by Sr. AAG Mr. Mohsin Qadri, raised a legal issue regarding the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226, notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy. The judgment notes that the Court did not delve into this legal issue.