Basant Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court granted the petitioner liberty to challenge the order dated 15.04.2026, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), by availing the remedy provided under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court did not decide on the merits of the show cause notice or the cancellation order, as the petitioner was permitted to pursue the statutory appeal. The reasoning was based on the availability of an alternative statutory remedy. The Court explicitly left undecided the legality and arbitrariness of the show cause notice and the cancellation order.

Facts

The petitioner, Basant Kumar Gupta, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 22.05.2024 for rejection of application for revocation of registration, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Supaul Range. The petitioner also challenged an order dated 04.10.2024, passed by the same authority, cancelling registration under Section 29 of the CGST Act. The petitioner contended that these actions were arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction, failing to consider statutory notifications and filed returns. The respondents submitted that the petitioner had filed an appeal on 09.04.2026 before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), which was dismissed on 15.04.2026. The petitioner's counsel then sought liberty to challenge the appellate order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show cause notice for rejection of revocation of registration and the subsequent order cancelling registration were arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction, failing to consider statutory notifications and filed returns, thereby violating principles of natural justice and the petitioner's right to do business under Article 19(1)(g) and right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as argued by the petitioner. 2. Whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 112 of the CGST Act to challenge the appellate order dated 15.04.2026, as submitted by the respondents and accepted by the petitioner. The respondents did not explicitly argue on the merits of the show cause notice or the cancellation order, but rather on the availability of an alternative remedy.