Mohd. Aqil Proprietor Of M/S Ma Garments vs. Principal Commissioner Central GST, Delhi And Anr.

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner has two alternative remedies available under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Firstly, the Petitioner can file an application for revocation of its cancelled Goods and Services Tax Registration under Section 30 of the CGST Act. Secondly, the Petitioner can file an appeal against the Order for Cancellation of Registration dated July 10, 2023. Furthermore, the Court noted that an appeal is also maintainable against the Summary Demand Order dated April 26, 2024. The Court observed that given these available statutory remedies, the Petitioner, if advised, may avail them in accordance with the CGST Act. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with these observations, without delving into the merits of the cancellation or demand orders.

Facts

The Petitioner, Mohd. Aqil, proprietor of M/s Ma Garments, filed a writ petition in 2026 before the Delhi High Court. The petition sought to quash an Order for Cancellation of Registration dated July 10, 2023, passed by Respondent No. 2, and a consequential Summary of the Order (Demand Order) dated April 26, 2024. The Petitioner also prayed for the restoration of his GST registration (GSTIN: 07BVXPA1459C1ZL) with consequential benefits. The Petitioner sought these reliefs primarily on the grounds of seeking a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The writ petition was filed in the year 2026.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner has alternative remedies available against the Order for Cancellation of Registration dated July 10, 2023, and the Summary of the Order (Demand Order) dated April 26, 2024, under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner sought to quash the orders and sought restoration of registration, implying a challenge to the validity of the orders and a lack of adequate opportunity. The Petitioner's prayers indicate a desire for the High Court to directly intervene and provide relief. Respondents' Contention: The Respondents, through the Court's observations, implicitly argued that statutory remedies exist, making a writ petition inappropriate. The judgment notes the availability of specific remedies under the CGST Act.