Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (6) TMI 747 - HC - GSTDismissal of appeal on the ground that the same was barred by limitation - seeking inter alia a direction to the respondents to restore his registration cancelled - HELD THAT - This petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority for registration of his GST number within a period of seven days from today. The Competent Authority shall restore GST number of the petitioner immediately subject to the completion of all requisite formalities. The petitioner shall file the returns and deposit the taxes and penalty along with interest within a period of seven days. In the event the needful is not done by the petitioner within stipulated period this order shall cease to be in operation. Petition disposed off.
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, through Hon'ble Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjay Parihar, addressed a petition challenging the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration dated 10.02.2024. The petitioner's appeal under Section 107(1) of the GST Act, 2017, was dismissed by the Appellate Authority as barred by limitation. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner sought restoration of registration.Relying on precedents (orders dated 29.04.2024 in WP(C) 873/2024 and 01.04.2024 in WP(C) 182/2024), the Court noted that registrations have been restored upon the petitioner's undertaking to deposit tax, penalty, and interest, and file returns as mandated by the GST Act, 2017. The Court disposed of the petition directing the petitioner to apply for restoration within seven days, with the Competent Authority mandated to restore registration upon completion of formalities and compliance with tax dues. Failure to comply would render the order ineffective.The Court expressly refrained from deciding on the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 in light of alternative remedies, stating: "Nothing said in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion... that notwithstanding the availability of the alternative remedy of appeal, petition under 226 is directly maintainable." The petition was accordingly disposed of on these factual and procedural grounds.
|