Aashish Traders vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Aashish Traders, through Birendra Prasad Singh, challenged an order dated 15.07.2021, issued by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Darbhanga, which cancelled their GST registration. The petitioner argued that this order was a non-speaking order, similar to one considered by a co-ordinate bench in a previous case, Manoj Kumar Sah v. The State of Bihar & Anr. The State counsel brought to the court's attention Notification No. 03/2023 dated 31st March, 2023, which provides relief to taxpayers whose registration was cancelled before 31st December, 2022, allowing them to file pending returns by 30th June, 2023. The impugned order in this case was dated 15.07.2021, falling within the scope of this notification.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order of cancellation dated 15.07.2021 was liable to be set aside. While the judgment does not explicitly state the order was non-speaking, it implicitly accepts the petitioner's reliance on the precedent where this was a key finding. The Court found that the petitioner's case fell within the purview of Notification No. 03/2023 dated 31st March, 2023. This notification provides an opportunity for taxpayers whose GST registration was cancelled prior to 31st December, 2022, to file their pending returns by 30th June, 2023. The Court reasoned that since the cancellation order was dated 15.07.2021, the petitioner could avail the benefits of this notification. The ratio decidendi is that orders of cancellation of GST registration, especially when falling within the ambit of subsequent beneficial notifications, should be set aside to allow taxpayers to regularize their compliance. The Court set aside the impugned order and granted liberty to the petitioner to comply with the terms of Notification No. 03/2023.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order of cancellation of GST registration dated 15.07.2021, issued by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Darbhanga, is a non-speaking order and thus liable to be set aside? The petitioner contended that the order is non-speaking, relying on the precedent set in Manoj Kumar Sah v. The State of Bihar & Anr. The revenue did not contest this point directly but highlighted a subsequent notification offering relief. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief under Notification No. 03/2023 dated 31st March, 2023, for the cancellation of their GST registration? The petitioner's counsel implicitly argued for relief by challenging the cancellation order. The revenue pointed out the applicability of the notification, which grants permission to file pending returns if the cancellation occurred prior to 31st December, 2022, and the petitioner complies with its terms.