Tahir Ahmad Pandith vs. Union Territory Through Commsioner State Taxes And Others

Held

The Court held that the petition could be disposed of by directing the petitioner to approach the competent authority for the restoration of his GST number. This decision was based on the similarity of the present case to previous ones where the Court had issued directions for restoration of registration. The reasoning was that the respondents had, in similar instances, agreed to restore registration upon the petitioner's undertaking to deposit the tax, penalty, and interest, and to file pending returns. The ratio decidendi is that the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can direct the restoration of GST registration, even if an appeal was dismissed for limitation, provided the petitioner undertakes to fulfill all statutory obligations, including filing returns and depositing dues, thereby aligning with the concessions previously made by the revenue authorities in similar cases. The operative direction was for the petitioner to approach the competent authority within seven days for restoration, subject to completion of formalities, and thereafter to file pending returns and deposit taxes, penalty, and interest within seven days of restoration. Failure to comply would render the order inoperative.

Facts

The petitioner, Tahir Ahmad Pandith, had his GST registration cancelled by the State Taxes Officer, Circle Baramulla-III (Sopore) Kashmir, on 21.02.2025, following a show cause notice issued on 29.01.2025, to which no reply was filed. The petitioner's subsequent appeal against this cancellation was dismissed as time-barred. Aggrieved, the petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking restoration of his GST registration. The Court noted that similar cases had been decided by directing restoration of registration, subject to the petitioner's undertaking to deposit tax, penalty, and interest. The respondents had conceded to restoring registration for defaulting dealers who complied with the law by submitting returns and paying dues.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court can direct the restoration of GST registration when the appeal against the cancellation order was dismissed on grounds of limitation, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought restoration of his GST registration, relying on previous High Court orders in similar cases where registration was restored subject to compliance with statutory obligations. The petitioner implicitly argued that the procedural bar of limitation should not prevent equitable relief in the interest of justice and business continuity, especially when the respondents had shown willingness to restore registration in comparable situations. Revenue/State's contention: The respondents, through their counsel, had previously conceded in similar matters that they would restore the registration of defaulting dealers provided they complied with the law by submitting their returns and depositing the sales tax and other dues payable under the Act. This concession formed the basis for the Court's approach in similar cases.