M/S Sitaram Rameshwar Prasad And Sons Proprietor Sitaram Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court observed that the order of cancellation of GST 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 considered appealable orders. Regarding the application for the release of goods confiscated during the search, which was submitted on 20.01.2026, the Court directed that this application be decided in accordance with the law within thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The Court did not decide the merits of the case but disposed of the writ petition with these observations, allowing the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sitaram Rameshwar Prasad and Sons, engaged in trading 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, leading to a discrepancy in stock being worked out on an estimated basis. Subsequently, on December 25, 2025, orders of seizure and prohibition were issued under Rule 139(4) of the GST Rules, and proceedings under Section 130 of the GST Act were initiated. A show cause notice dated January 9, 2026, was issued proposing cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration. Despite the petitioner's reply on January 19, 2026, the registration was cancelled on January 20, 2026. The petitioner sought relief against the prohibition order and the cancellation order.

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? 2. Whether the order of cancellation of GST registration dated 20.01.2026 is an appealable order? 3. Whether the application for release of goods confiscated during the search, submitted on 20.01.2026, requires timely decision? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the orders of prohibition and cancellation were illegal and sought relief from the High Court. They also contended that their application for the release of confiscated goods should be decided promptly. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue or state respondents. However, the court's observations indicate that the revenue authorities passed the impugned orders.