M/S G N T Constructions Company vs. Union Territory Of J And K And Ors. (State Taxes Department)

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority for restoration of its GST number within seven days. The Competent Authority was directed to restore the GST number immediately, subject to the petitioner completing all requisite formalities. The petitioner was also directed to file all pending returns and deposit the taxes, penalty, and interest within seven days. The Court noted that this order would cease to be in operation if the petitioner failed to comply within the stipulated period. The Court explicitly stated that it had not gone into the legal issues raised by the respondents, as the petition was disposed of based on the peculiar facts and circumstances and analogy with previously decided cases. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of cancelled GST registration where appeals are dismissed on limitation, the High Court may grant relief by directing restoration subject to the taxpayer fulfilling all statutory obligations, including filing returns and depositing dues, following a concession from the revenue.

Facts

The petitioner, M/S G N T Constructions Company, had its GST registration cancelled by the STO, Circle, Kupwara, Kashmir, on August 21, 2024, following a show cause notice issued on August 7, 2024, to which no reply was filed. The petitioner appealed this cancellation to the Appellate Authority, State Taxes Appeals-2, Kashmir, which dismissed the appeal on November 4, 2025, as being barred by limitation. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking restoration of its GST registration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, can direct the restoration of GST registration that was cancelled and whose appeal was dismissed as time-barred? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought restoration of registration, relying on previous High Court orders in similar cases where registration was restored subject to the petitioner's undertaking to deposit tax, penalty, and interest. The petitioner implicitly argued that the High Court has the power to grant relief in such circumstances, especially when the respondents have previously conceded to restoration under certain conditions. Respondent's contention: The respondents, represented by the State Taxes Department, did not explicitly argue against the restoration on merits in this specific instance, as the judgment notes that the Court did not go into the legal issues raised by the Government Advocate. However, the initial cancellation and dismissal of appeal by the authorities suggest a procedural non-compliance by the petitioner.