M/S Sitaram Sales Company vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the order of cancellation of registration dated 20.01.2026 is an appealable order, with the appeal lying to the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Circle Rewa. Similarly, the orders of seizure and prohibition dated 25.12.2025 were also found to be appealable. The Court directed that the application for release of goods confiscated during the search, submitted on 20.01.2026, be decided by the Competent Authority in accordance with the law within thirty days from the receipt of a certified copy of the order. The Court observed that the petitioner could avail the alternative statutory remedies available under the law. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sitaram Sales Company, a registered dealer of construction materials, filed a writ petition challenging orders passed by State GST Authorities. On December 20, 2025, search proceedings were conducted at the petitioner's premises under Section 67(2) of the GST Act, 2017, revealing stock discrepancies. Subsequently, on December 25, 2025, orders of seizure and prohibition were issued under Rule 139(4) of the GST Rules, initiating proceedings under Section 130 of the Act. A show cause notice for cancellation of registration was issued on January 9, 2026. Despite the petitioner's reply, registration was cancelled on January 20, 2026. The petitioner also submitted an application for the release of confiscated goods on January 20, 2026, which was pending.

Key Issues

1. Whether the orders of seizure and prohibition dated 25.12.2025, issued under Rule 139(4) of the GST Rules, are appealable orders? (Question of law) 2. Whether the order of cancellation of GST registration dated 20.01.2026 is an appealable order? (Question of law) 3. Whether the application for release of confiscated goods should be decided expeditiously? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the orders under challenge were illegal and sought relief from the High Court. They relied on the principle that statutory remedies should be available and effective. Revenue's arguments: The respondents argued that the orders passed were in accordance with the law and that the petitioner had alternative remedies available. They pointed to the specific provisions for appeal against such orders.