M/S. Vrajman Enterprises vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Deputy State Tax Officer (respondent No. 1) within one week from the date of the order. The petitioner was to submit a physical application seeking revocation of the cancellation of its GST registration. The petitioner undertook to pay the entire tax due for the intervening period, along with applicable interest, late fees, and penalties. Upon compliance, respondent No. 1 was directed to entertain the application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law within three weeks thereafter. The Court noted that the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled on account of non-filing of returns for a consecutive period of six months, as indicated by the reference to the order in WP No. 4508 of 2026. The Court found the present case to be similar to the aforementioned case and disposed of it for similar reasons. No order as to costs was made. Any pending miscellaneous petitions were also closed.

Facts

M/s. Vrajman Enterprises (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration by the Deputy State Tax Officer (the first respondent) via an order dated October 6, 2025. The petitioner argued that this action was arbitrary, illegal, unjust, violative of natural justice, and contrary to law, also infringing Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner sought to set aside the cancellation order and direct the respondents to restore its GST registration. The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also sought interim relief to suspend the cancellation order pending the disposal of the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the Deputy State Tax Officer in cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner and not restoring it is arbitrary, illegal, unjust, violative of principles of natural justice, contrary to law, and a failure to exercise power, thus violating Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the cancellation of its GST registration was arbitrary and illegal. It relied on a similar order passed by a co-ordinate bench of the High Court in WP No. 4508 of 2026 dated February 16, 2026, which disposed of a similar matter by allowing the petitioner to apply for revocation of cancellation. Revenue/State's contention: The learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent-State Tax did not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the order in the similar writ petition.