Akingam Cmsl Bindoo Kokernag And Others vs. Union Territory Of J And K And Others (Social Welfare)
Held
The Court held that the petitioners shall not be blacklisted or restrained from participating in future contracts unless a formal order of blacklisting is passed after affording them an opportunity of being heard. This interim direction was deemed necessary to protect the interests of the appellants pending the adjudication of the writ petition. The reasoning is based on the assurance given by the respondents that no formal blacklisting order has been passed and that an opportunity of hearing will be provided. The ratio decidendi is that principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a hearing, must be adhered to before imposing punitive measures like blacklisting, even in the context of GST dues recovery. The appeal was disposed of with this interim direction.
Facts
The appellants, Akingam CMSL Bindoo Kokernag and others, are aggrieved by an interim order dated 6th June, 2026, passed by a Single Judge of the High Court in a writ petition. This order deferred consideration of their prayer for interim relief. The primary grievance stems from an order dated 24th March, 2026, issued by the District Programme Officer, Poshan Project, Anantnag. This order directed the recovery of GST dues and blacklisting of vendors, particularly those who failed to furnish GST vouchers/bills of account. The appellants contend they were not afforded an opportunity of being heard before potential blacklisting and are consequently being prevented from participating in future contracts.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondents can blacklist the petitioners without first affording them an opportunity of being heard, as per principles of natural justice, in relation to the recovery of GST dues and failure to furnish GST vouchers/bills of account? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the communication dated 24th March, 2026, effectively leads to their blacklisting and prevents them from participating in future contracts without a proper hearing. They relied on the fundamental principles of natural justice, emphasizing the right to be heard before any adverse action is taken. Revenue's Arguments: The respondent, represented by the Deputy Advocate General, submitted that no formal order of blacklisting has been issued yet. They assured the court that the petitioners would not be blacklisted without being given an opportunity of hearing. They also stated that notices have already been issued to the petitioners by the competent authority.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 21.07.2026
This intra-Court appeal, filed under Clause 12 of the Jammu and Kashmir Letters Patent Appeal, is directed against an interim order dated 6th June, 2026, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPC No.1076/2026, titled “Akingam, CMSL Bindoo Kokernag th. its authorized representative and Others vs. Union Territory of J & K and Ors” whereby the writ Court has deferred consideration of the prayer for interim relief.
Without going into the details of the case set up by the appellants, suffice it to say that the appellants are primarily aggrieved by an order dated 24th March, 2026, whereby the District Programme Officer, Poshan Project, Anantnag has called upon the concerned CDPO’s to recover GST dues and to blacklist vendors, pa
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.