Dukhan Parsaila vs. State Of Bihar - Patna High Court, 05 August 2026

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15744 of 2025 ====================================================== Dukhan Parsaila Son of Kusheshwar Parsaila, Resident of Ward No. 3, Bathnaha, Madhubani, Bihar 847227. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. State of Bihar through the Commissioner of State Tax, having its office at Vias Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna. 2. Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Muzaffarpur East, Bihar. 3. Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Madhubani, Bihar. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. D. V. Pathy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sadashiv Tiwari Mr. Hiresh Karan Ms. Shivani Dewalla For the Respondent/s : Mr. AC to SC-11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH KUMAR

ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA) 4 05-08-2026

Heard learned counsel for the parties concerned.

The petitioner has filed the present writ application for restoration of the GST registration of the petitioner, which was cancelled by the competent authority vide order, dated 04.01.2020, with effect from the same date, on the ground of non-furnishing of returns for a continuous period of six months.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Dukhan Parasaila. The petitioner was registered under the Goods & Services Tax Act and was allotted GSTIN No. 10CMYPP0023J1Z2. The principal 2/3 place of business of the petitioner is situated at Ward No. 03, Bathnaha, Madhubani, Bihar, 847227. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was served with a show cause notice on 26.12.2019 under Rule 22(1) of the BGST/CGST Rules, 2017, alleging non- furnishing of returns for a continuous period of six months. It is submitted that seven days’ time was granted for filing reply to the show cause notice.

Learned counsel further submits that thereafter the registration of the petitioner was cancelled vide order, dated 04.01.2020. It is submitted that the cancellation order is a non- speaking order and was passed without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further submitted that, after cancellation of the registration, the petitioner could not file the subsequent returns as the GST portal did not permit the petitioner to file the returns after cancellation of registration.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, submits that the petitioner has adequate statutory remedies available under the provisions of the CGST Act, including the remedy of revocation of cancellation and registration and appeal before the appellate authority. It is submitted that the petitioner has failed to avail the statutory remedy and therefore no interference is warranted by this Court. The petitioner has 3/3 ashwani/- (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) ( Vikash Kumar, J) U