Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And Others

Held

The Court disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to approach the competent authority for the restoration of his GST number within seven days. The competent authority was directed to restore the GST number immediately, subject to the petitioner completing all requisite formalities, including filing returns and depositing taxes, penalty, and interest within seven days. The Court clarified that if the petitioner failed to comply within the stipulated period, the order of cancellation of registration would come into force. The Court explicitly stated that it had not gone into the legal issues raised by the parties and that nothing in the order should be construed as an expression of opinion on any question of law. The decision was based on the peculiar facts and circumstances and the analogy of previously decided cases.

Facts

The petitioner, Fasil Hussain Shah, is challenging an order dated 05.03.2024, issued by the State Taxes Officer, Superintendent Circle, Kupwara, which cancelled his GST registration. The petitioner appealed this cancellation before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 107(1) of the GST Act, 2017. However, his appeal was dismissed on 27.01.2026, being barred by limitation. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu, seeking restoration of his GST registration. The petitioner argued that his case is similar to previous judgments by the same court where registration was restored subject to certain conditions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should direct the restoration of GST registration when the appeal against the cancellation order was dismissed on grounds of limitation, considering the petitioner's submission that his case is covered by previous judgments of this Court. (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation and application of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner's case is fully covered by the judgment of this Court in Umar Farooq vs. UT of J&K and Others (WP (C) No. 1491/2025). Similar cases have been decided by this Court where registration was restored subject to the undertaking to deposit tax, penalty, and interest. Revenue's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment. The judgment notes that the respondents had conceded to restoring registration in similar cases provided compliance with law.