Vaishali Management And Services Private Limited vs. The State Of Bihar - Patna High Court, 14 July 2026

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7609 of 2026 ====================================================== Vaishali Management and Services Private Limited, At Surendra Complex, Danapur, Patna, Bihar, Pin-801503 and having Registration Number -10AACCV8661K1Z6 through duly authorized its Director, Vishal Chandra, Male, aged about 34 years, Son of Sanat Kumar, Resident of Chandra Complex, 102 Saguna More, Khagaul Road, Post - Danapur, P.S. Danapur, District - Patna, State Bihar, Pin-801503. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar Through the Principal Secretary Cum Commissioner State Taxes, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner, Department of State Taxes, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Additional Commissioner of State Taxes, Patna West Division, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Joint Commissioner of State Taxes, Danapur Anchal-1, Danapur, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, Danapur, Anchal-1, Danapur, Government of Bihar, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr.Vivek Prasad, GP-7 Mr. Pratiyush Kumar, AC to GP-7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH KUMAR

ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA) 2 14-07-2026 The present writ application has been filed for restoration of the registration of the petitioner company, which was cancelled by the competent authority vide order dated 13.06.2025 w.e.f 01.04.2025 on the grounds that the company does not conduct any business from the declared place of business/ place of business and invoices or bills were issued 2/5 without supply of goods or services or both in violation of the provisions of the Act/ Rule made there under.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a company in the name of Vaishali Management and Service Private Limited in which, the petitioner is a director along with one Anup Kumar. The petitioner company is engaged in the business of supply of building materials. The Registered office of the company is situated at Danapur. The petitioner was registered under the Goods and Services Tax and was allotted Registration No. 10AACCV8661K1Z6. 3. The business premises of the petitioner company was inspected by the officials of the GST on 01.04.2025 and during inspection, the business place was found closed; whereas in reality, the financial year came to an end on 31.03.2025 and due to end of the financial year having heavy workload, the business premises was closed on 01.04.2025. 4. The respondent no. 5, the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, Danapur, did not visit the whole business premises and also could not inspect the files, registered documents, Vouchers, Challans, and bills related to the business of the petitioner company.

Learned counsel submits that under Section 22(3)

3/5 of the CGST 2017, the competent authority was required to take a decision for cancellation of registration within a period of 30 days; but in the present case, the authority has taken a decision after 70 days. As such, the cancellation order is in violation of statutory provision under Rule 22(3) of the CGST 2017. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the director of the petitioner company has not been able to demonstrate any violation of the Act or the Rules by the competent authority inasmuch as Rule 22(3) is applicable in the case where an application is filed by the entity for cancellation of the registration voluntarily. This provision has no application in the present case.

Referring to Section 30 of the CGST, learned counsel further submits that remedy of the petitioner company was to file an application for revocation of cancellation of registration within 30 days from the date of impugned order dated 13.06.2025; but the petitioner failed to take recourse to the aforesaid remedy. Further, the petitioner has a remedy for filing appeal before the appellate authority within 120 days (90+30) days from the date of the impugned order but the same was also not availed by the petitioner.

The grounds of cancellation as mentioned in the 4/5 impugned order are factual grounds which may not be gone into by this court under its writ juri iction. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any defect in the decision making process by the respondent authority.

Having regards to the submissions made by the parties and taking into consideration the fact that respondent authority has come to the conclusion that the petitioner does not conduct any business from declared place of business and issues invoices without making any supply are based upon inspection done by the authorities and the petitioner has failed to show any perversity in the decision making process, as such we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

10.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

11.

However, the petitioner is given liberty to take recourse of provisions of Section 45 of the CGST Act and file the final return within 30 days from today.

12.

If the same is filed by the petitioner and the final return is accepted by the authority, the petitioner may take step for fresh registration, if so, advised before the concerned authority, which may be considered by the authority without prejudice to the fact that earlier the registration of the petitioner was cancelled.

5/5

13.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application is disposed.

N.K/- (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) ( Vikash Kumar, J) U