Vaseem Yousuf Raja vs. Union Territory Of J And K And Ors. (Sales Tax)

Held

The Court disposed of both writ petitions by directing the petitioners to approach the Competent Authority for restoration of their GST numbers within seven days. The Competent Authority was directed to restore the registration immediately upon completion of requisite formalities. The petitioners were also mandated to file all pending returns and deposit all outstanding taxes, penalties, and interest within seven days. Failure to comply with these conditions would render the Court's order inoperative. The Court explicitly stated that it had not adjudicated on the legal issue of maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226, nor did its order express any opinion on whether such petitions are maintainable directly despite the availability of an alternative appellate remedy. The decision was based on the peculiar facts and circumstances and analogy with previous similar cases where the respondents conceded to restoration upon compliance.

Facts

The petitioner, Sheikh Mohammad Yousuf, had his GST registration cancelled by the Sales Tax Officer, Circle Anantnag, Kashmir, effective from January 1, 2020, pursuant to a show-cause notice and his reply. An appeal filed before the Appellate Authority was dismissed as barred by limitation on May 15, 2024. The petitioner then invoked Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court seeking restoration of his registration. A similar situation arose in a connected writ petition where registration was cancelled on January 13, 2021, and the petitioner directly approached the High Court. In both cases, the Court noted previous judgments where registration was restored subject to the petitioner depositing tax, penalty, and interest.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are maintainable directly before this Court, notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner implicitly argues for the maintainability of the writ petition by directly approaching the High Court, likely on grounds of exceptional circumstances or procedural irregularities, though specific arguments are not detailed in the judgment. Revenue's contention: The learned Advocate General for the respondents raised a legal issue regarding the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 when an alternative remedy of appeal is available. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue on the merits of the cancellation or the limitation issue.