Kanchan Mala Kumari vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Kanchan Mala Kumari, proprietor of M/s Shiva Enterprises, filed a writ application challenging the suspension of her GST registration on 18.09.2024. The suspension was based on allegations that the business was not being conducted from the declared place of business. The petitioner submitted a clarification with proof of her registered place of business. Subsequently, her registration was cancelled on 29.05.2026. Following this, she filed an application for revocation of the cancellation order on 12.06.2026, which remained pending. The petitioner argued that continuous indefinite suspension without final adjudication was hindering her business operations.
Held
The Court acknowledged the pendency of the petitioner's revocation application dated 12.06.2026. While the issues regarding the legality of the suspension and the delay in adjudication were raised, the Court did not delve into a detailed analysis of these points. Instead, it focused on providing a procedural remedy. The Court directed the concerned authority to consider and dispose of the pending revocation application in accordance with the law within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt or communication of the order. The Court did not make any specific findings on the merits of the suspension or cancellation of registration, leaving those aspects to be decided during the disposal of the revocation application.
Key Issues
1. Whether the indefinite suspension of GST registration without final adjudication is permissible under the law, and if not, what relief can be granted to the petitioner? 2. Whether the delay in disposing of the application for revocation of GST registration cancellation is justified? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the continuous indefinite suspension of her GST registration without a final decision amounted to an effective stoppage of her business. She also highlighted that her application for revocation of the cancelled registration, filed on 12.06.2026, was required to be disposed of within 30 days but remained pending. Revenue's Arguments: The State submitted that the authority should be directed to dispose of the petitioner's revocation application within a specified timeframe.
Sections Cited
Section 30
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA) 3 29-07-2026 The present writ application has been filed for quashing the show cause notice and the order of suspension of registration of the petitioner dated 18.09.2024. 2. Mr. Rohit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is proprietorship firm under the name and style of M/s Shiva Enterprises, operating her business from House No 228 Jagdeo Nagar, Nahar Par, Patna-801503 havinhg GSTIN10DOPHK6711J2Z3. On 18.09.2024, the registration of the petitioner was suspended on allegations that business was not being conducted from the declared place of business and the 2/3 clarification/ show cause notice was served upon the petitioner. Upon receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner filed a detailed clarification on the GST portal denying the allegation and providing the proof of registered place of business. It has further been submitted that continuous indefinite suspension without final adjudication amounts to stoppage of business of the petitioner. It has next been submitted that during pendency of the writ application, the petitioner’s registration was cancelled on 29.05.2026. After cancellation of the petitioner’s registration, the petitioner filed an application under Section 30 for revocation of the order of cancellation on 12.06.2026, which was required to be disposed by the authority within 30 days but the same is still pending.
Mr. Ravish Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the authority maybe directed to dispose the revocation application of the petitioner within a limited time frame.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having considered the submissions made on their behalf, and taking into account the nature of dispute, the writ application is disposed of with a direction to the concerned authority, before whom the revocation application dated 12.06.2026 is pending, 3/3 to consider and dispose of the said application in accordance with law within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt/communication of this order.
With the aforesaid direction, this writ application is disposed.
Ashwin/- (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) ( Vikash Kumar, J) U
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.