Kalsi Steel Industries vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Kalsi Steel Industries, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 21.09.2023, passed by the Excise & Taxation Officer-cum-State Tax Officer, Fatehgarh Sahib, which cancelled their GST registration effective from 06.06.2023. The petitioner sought the quashing of this cancellation order and a direction for the restoration of their GST registration. The State, through its counsel, informed the Court that an order dated 13.10.2023 had been passed by the same authority. This subsequent order considered the petitioner's application for revocation of the cancellation, found it to be in order, and restored the GST registration. The High Court was apprised of these developments.

Held

The High Court noted that the petitioner's primary prayer was for the quashing of the GST registration cancellation order dated 21.09.2023 and for the restoration of their registration. The Court was informed by the State that an order dated 13.10.2023 had been passed by the Excise & Taxation Officer-cum-State Tax Officer, Fatehgarh Sahib, wherein the petitioner's application for revocation of the cancellation was examined and found to be in order, leading to the restoration of the GST registration. Consequently, the Court was of the considered opinion that the writ petition had become infructuous. The Court disposed of the writ petition and the application for amendment as such, while leaving it open for the petitioner to avail further remedies in accordance with law against the said action, if any.

Key Issues

1. Whether the GST registration of the petitioner, Kalsi Steel Industries, was validly cancelled by the order dated 21.09.2023, and if not, whether it should be restored. This issue turns on the provisions related to the cancellation and revocation of GST registration under the CGST Act and Punjab GST Act. The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was erroneous and sought its quashing and restoration of registration. The State, through its counsel, informed the Court about the subsequent order dated 13.10.2023, which had already addressed the petitioner's grievance by restoring the registration upon review of their revocation application. No specific arguments were recorded for the State beyond this factual submission.