M/S Jafar Mushtaq Khan Kuligam Th.Its Prop vs. Union Territory Of J And K Th. Commissioner State Taxes Department And Others

Held

The Court held that the judgment passed in Sheikh Mohammad Yousuf's case (supra) covers the case of the present petitioner as well. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with specific directions. The petitioner was directed to approach the competent authority for the registration of their GST Number within 15 days from the date of the order. The competent authority was directed to restore the petitioner's GST Number immediately, subject to the completion of all requisite formalities. Furthermore, the petitioner was mandated to file returns and deposit the taxes, along with penalty and interest, within 15 days. The Court stipulated that if the petitioner failed to comply with these directions within the stipulated period, the order would cease to be in operation. No specific issue was left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Jafar Mushtaq Khan, is aggrieved by an order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appellate Authority), State Taxes Appeals-II, Kashmir, Srinagar. This order rejected the petitioner's statutory appeal against the cancellation of his GST registration. The sole ground for rejection was that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The petitioner's counsel argued that their case is covered by a previous judgment of the High Court in 'Sheikh Mohammad Yousuf v. Union Territory of J&K and Ors' dated 26th July, 2024.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's case is covered by the judgment of this Court in 'Sheikh Mohammad Yousuf v. Union Territory of J&K and Ors' dated 26th July, 2024, thereby entitling them to relief against the rejection of their appeal on grounds of limitation? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner's counsel argued that their case is entirely covered by the aforementioned judgment of this Court, implying that the principles laid down therein should be applied to grant relief. The judgment in Sheikh Mohammad Yousuf's case was relied upon to support this argument. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (UT of J&K through Commissioner State Taxes Department and Ors.).