Umar Farooq Vs Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Jammu & Kashmir High Court)
Summary: The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court considered a writ petition challenging the cancellation of Umar Farooq’s GST registration on 1 March 2024. His appeal under Section 107(1) of the GST Act, 2017 was dismissed on 8 April 2025 as time-barred. He consequently approached the High Court under Article 226 seeking restoration of registration. The Court referred to similar matters in which the respondents had agreed to restoration subject to filing outstanding returns and payment of tax, interest and penalty. It directed the petitioner to approach the competent authority within seven days. The authority was directed to restore his GST number immediately, subject to completion of formalities. The petitioner was also required to file returns and deposit taxes, penalty and interest within seven days; otherwise, the order would cease to operate.
The High Court referred to its earlier orders dated 29 April 2024 in WP(C) 873/2024 and 1 April 2024 in WP(C) 182/2024, wherein the respondents had agreed to restore cancelled GST registrations provided the defaulting dealers filed pending returns and paid the applicable taxes, penalties and interest. Finding the petitioner’s case similar to those matters, the Court directed him to approach the competent authority within seven days for restoration of his GST registration. The authority was directed to immediately, subject to completion of all requisite formalities. The petitioner was also required to file outstanding GST returns and deposit the applicable taxes, penalty and interest within seven days. The Court expressly stipulated that failure to comply with these conditions within the prescribed period would cause its order to cease operating.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT
1. The petitioner is aggrieved of cancellation of his registration dated 01.03.2024 and the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 107(1) of the GST Act, 2017, before the Appellate Authority State Taxes, Appeals-II Kashmir Division, Srinagar. The appeal came to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 8th April, 2025, on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. This is how the petitioner has invoked the Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking inter aliaa direction to the respondents to restore his registration cancelled in terms of the order dated 01.03.2024.
2. Similar cases have come up before this Court, wherein, subject to the petitioner’s undertaking to deposit the tax and penalty along with interest in accordance with the GST Act, 2017, a direction has been issued to the Competent Authority to restore the registration of the said petitioner. The aforementioned orders have been passed on the concession given by the respondents to restore the registration of the defaulting dealers, provided they comply with law, by submitting the returns and depositing the sales tax and other dues payable by them under the GST Act, 2017. Attention of this Court is invited to order dated 29th April, 2024, passed in WP(C) 873/2024, and order dated 1st April, 2024, passed in WP(C) 182/2024.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record and also in view of the fact that the case in hand is similar and identical to the aforementioned cases and, therefore, 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.
4. Since this petition has been disposed of based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and also on the analogy of the cases earlier decided, this Court has not gone into the legal issue raised by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General on behalf of the respondents. Nothing said in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court that notwithstanding the availability of the alternative remedy of appeal, petition under 226 is directly maintainable.
5. Disposed of.
