Abdul Rahim Dar vs. Union Territory Of J And K And Ors. (State Taxes Department)

Held

The Court held that the case of the petitioner, Abdul Rahim Dar, is covered by the judgment previously passed in Sheikh Mohammad Yousuf vs. Union Territory of J&K and Ors. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. The petitioner is directed to approach the competent authority for the registration of his GST Number within 07 days from the date of the order. The competent authority is then directed to restore the petitioner's GST Number immediately, provided all requisite formalities are completed. Furthermore, the petitioner must file the pending returns and deposit the applicable taxes, along with any penalty and interest, within 07 days. The order's operation is contingent upon the petitioner fulfilling these obligations within the stipulated timeframes; otherwise, the order will cease to be effective. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Abdul Rahim Dar, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar. The petitioner sought relief concerning his GST registration. The petitioner's counsel argued that the case was covered by a previous judgment of the same court in WP(C) No. 1061/2024, titled Sheikh Mohammad Yousuf vs. Union Territory of J&K and Ors. The respondents were the Union Territory of J&K and others. The court considered the arguments and the material on record.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present writ petition is covered by the judgment dated 26th July, 2024, passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 1061/2024 titled 'Sheikh Mohammad Yousuf vs. Union Territory of J&K and Ors.'? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that their case is entirely covered by the aforementioned judgment in Sheikh Mohammad Yousuf's case, implying that the relief granted in that case should be extended to them. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, by disposing of the petition based on the petitioner's reliance on a precedent, it can be inferred that the revenue did not contest the applicability of the cited judgment or the proposed course of action.