Case Law Details
Shivansh Fmcg India Private Limited Vs Union of India (Allahabad High Court)
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the authorities to restore its GST registration in compliance with the appellate authority’s order dated 27.01.2026. Earlier, a show cause notice dated 16.07.2025 proposed cancellation of the registration on the grounds that the petitioner was not conducting business from the declared place of business and had allegedly issued invoices without supply of goods or services. The registration was cancelled by order dated 29.07.2025.
The petitioner’s appeal was allowed on 27.01.2026. The appellate authority set aside the order rejecting revocation of cancellation and directed immediate restoration of the GST registration while permitting the proper officer to initiate recovery proceedings, if any. However, despite nearly five months passing, the registration was not restored.
The revenue authorities contended that since they had filed an appeal against the appellate order, they were not required to restore the registration. They also relied on a subsequent survey dated 15.04.2026, claiming that no business was being carried out by the petitioner.
The Allahabad High Court held that it was undisputed that the appellate authority had set aside the earlier order and had positively directed restoration of the registration. The Court observed that merely filing an appeal does not automatically operate as a stay of the appellate authority’s order, as there is no statutory provision providing for such automatic stay. Therefore, the revenue had no legal basis to withhold compliance.
The Court also found the revenue’s reliance on the subsequent survey to be arbitrary and unreasonable, observing that once the registration had been cancelled, it was expected that the business premises might remain locked until registration was revived.
Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, and the Court directed the authorities to restore the petitioner’s registration forthwith, not later than 18.05.2026, subject to the outcome of the revenue’s pending appeal.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Heard Shri Nishant Mishra along with Ms. Prerna Surolia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Present petition has been filed with the following relief:-
“Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents no.3 & 4 to forthwith restore the registration of the petitioner, as directed in order dated 27.01.2026 passed by the appellant authority.”
3. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed.
4. Earlier show cause notice dated 16.07.2025 was issued by Superintendent, Range-Shyamganj, CGST, Bareilly proposing to cancel the petitioner’s registration for the following reasons:-
“1. Rule 21(a)- Person does not conduct any business from declared place of business/place of business not found.
2. Rule 21(b)-person issues invoice or bill without supply of goods or services or both in violation of the provisions of the Act, or the rules made thereunder.”
5. Thereafter, vide order dated 29.07.2025 the petitioner’s registration was cancelled for the above disclosed reasons. Petitioner’s appeal filed there against, was allowed by order dated 27.01.2026 passed by the appellate authority. The operative portion of the order dated 27.01.2026 reads as below:-
“Accordingly, I hereby find no sound merit in the REG-19 (ORDER OF REJECTION OF APPLICATION FOR REVOCATION OF CANCELLATION) Reference No.ZA091025324368J dated 27.10.2025 passed by the Superintendent, CGST-Range Shyamganj-Div-II, Bareilly and the same is set aside. I hereby allow the present appeal bearing No.820/GST/APPL.-NOIDA/GBN/2025-26, dated 22.12.2025 filed by M/sShivansh FMCG India Pvt.Ltd. G-7, Dohra Road, Near BDA Ghantaghar., Ramganganagar Colony, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, 243006 on the above terms and the GST registration of the appellant is hereby ordered to be restored with immediate effect. However, the Proper Officer shall be at liberty to initiate action for recovery of dues, if any, from the appellant.”
6. The further application made by the petitioner to revoke that order was rejected by further order dated 27.01.2026.
7. Thus, the order refusing to revoke the cancellation of registration (vide order dated 29.07.2025) was set-aside. A positive direction has been issued to the competent authority to restore the petitioner’s registration. Almost five months have passed. The registration of the petitioner has not been restored.
8. In above circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court. Upon exchange of affidavits, it transpires that the revenue authorities are labouring under the belief that on their appeal preferred against order dated 27.01.2026, there is no requirement of law to immediately restore the petitioner’s registration or to give compliance to the order of the appeal authority. As to fact basis, reliance has been placed on the subsequent survey dated 15.04.2026. It was further revealed to the revenue authorities that no business is being carried out by the petitioner.
9. On such appraisal of law and facts, the prayer made has been resisted.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first place there is no denial that the appeal authority has vide order dated 27.01.2026 set-aside the order dated 27.10.2025 refusing to revoke the order dated 29.07.2025 whereby the petitioner’s registration under the CGST Act, 2017 had been cancelled. It is also not denied that a positive direction has been issued by the appeal authority vide order dated 27.01.2026 to restore the registration of the petitioner.
11. Seen in that light, mere filing of the appeal against the order dated 27.01.2026 passed by the appeal authority does not amount to grant of stay against the order dated 27.01.2026 passed by the appeal authority. The statutory provisions in that regard are unambiguous. There is no provision of automatic grant of stay, in such a circumstance. Therefore, there is no legal sanction to the stand taken by the revenue that it may not be compelled to restore the registration of the petitioner during pendency of its appeal against the order dated 27.01.2026 passed by the first appeal authority.
12. As to the fact basis, we must record that the revenue authority has acted in wholly arbitrary and unreasonable manner. Once it is admitted to the revenue that the registration of the petitioner stands cancelled from 27.09.2025, it is only to be expected that till the registration is revived the business premises of the petitioner may remain locked.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition must succeed and is allowed.
14. Let the registration of the petitioner be revived forthwith i.e. not later than 18.05.2026. It is, however, clarified that such restoration would remain subject to outcome of appeal preferred by the revenue against the order dated 27.01.2026 passed by the first appeal authority.
Author Bio
