Paramjeet Singh vs. Union Territory Of J And K And Ors. (State Taxes Department)

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority for the restoration of his GST number within seven days. The Competent Authority was directed to restore the registration immediately, subject to the petitioner completing all requisite formalities. The petitioner was also directed to file pending returns and deposit the applicable taxes, penalty, and interest within seven days. The Court explicitly stated that it had not gone into the legal issue raised by the respondents regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, as the case was disposed of based on peculiar facts and analogy with earlier decided cases. The Court clarified that its order 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. The order would cease to operate if the petitioner failed to comply with the stipulated conditions within the given timeframe.

Facts

The petitioner, Paramjeet Singh, is aggrieved by the cancellation of his GST registration on 10.02.2024. He filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, State Taxes, Appeals-II, Kashmir Division, Srinagar, under Section 107(1) of the GST Act, 2017. This appeal was dismissed on 22.04.2025, as being barred by limitation. Consequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court 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 restoration of registration subject to the petitioner depositing tax, penalty, and interest, and filing pending returns.

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 dismissed on the ground of limitation? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner invoked Article 226 seeking restoration of his GST registration, implying a challenge to the cancellation order and the subsequent dismissal of his appeal. Revenue's contention: The Senior Additional Advocate General for the respondents raised a legal issue regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, given the dismissal of the appeal on limitation grounds. The judgment does not elaborate on the specific arguments presented by the revenue on this point, other than noting that a legal issue was raised.