AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 141
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mumbai dated 26.03.2025 rejecting the appeal filed by the Petitioner for revival of GST registration; b. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing Respondent No. 2, their servants, subordinates and agents: i. To* withdraw the Impugned Order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 2 (Exhibit 'A' hereto) along with the the Rejection Order dated 12.01.2024 (Exhibit 1.D' hereto) and thereby restore GST registration bearing no: GSTIN-27ABXPY9513ElZU ii. To Further direct the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to file subsequent GST Returns; c. That this Hon'ble Court may....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cause notice was granted to the petitioner to reply. A personal hearing was scheduled on 2 January, 2024. However, the petitioner could not appear for hearing for the bona fide reasons as set out in the memo of the petition, which we do not intend to delve into, suffice it to observe that the impugned order was passed in Form GST REG-19, cancelling the petitioner's GST registration on the sole reason that no reply to this show cause notice was submitted and accordingly the effective date of cancellation of registration was declared to be 31 May, 2023. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 12 January, 2024 cancelling the GST registration, approached the Appellate Authority by filing an appeal, which has been rejected by the impu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs. WPL/29525/2024 decided on 17 March, 2025, M/s. Parmatma Steel Centre (a proprietorship concern of Mr. Jitendra Mohanlal Jain) vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. WPL/23875/2023 as also the recent decision in Kishore Nichani vs. The Union of India & Ors. Writ Petition No. 4211 of 2025 decided on 27 January, 2026 and a decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Azaria Corp. LLP vs. The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax & Anr. as referred to in Kishore Nichani vs. The Union of India & Ors. (supra). He submitted that there were bona fide reasons for not filing the appeal and therefore, cancellation of registration itself is prejudicial as held by this Court. It is also his submissions that cancellation of registration although has adve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot adhering to the proviso i.e. not affording an opportunity of being heard, would, per se, be in the teeth of Section 29, hence void ab initio. Further, Section 30 which provides for revocation of cancellation of registration authorizes the concerned tax authority to revoke cancellation of registration of an assessee on fulfilling the requisite conditions which are specified and recognized by such provision. Also an application for restoration of the registration is required to be decided, inter alia, after granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee whose registration is cancelled. Thus, it is not the case that authorities are powerless to pass an order of revocation of cancellation of registration. Sufficient provisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....If, in addition to what has been paid by the Petitioner, any further amount towards penalty, etc. are found to be due, the Respondents can always intimate this fact to the Petitioner, and the Petitioner can pay the additional amount within 15 days from the receipt of such intimation. However, to permit the registration to remain cancelled permanently does appear to be disproportionate at least in the facts of the present case. 14. We may also refer to the decision of the Orissa High Court in the case of Bimal Kishore Sahu Vs. Additional Commissioner, GST (Appeals), BBSR & anr, where, reliance was placed on another decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Orissa High Court in the case of Mohanty Enterprises Vs. The Commissioner CT & ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 22nd December 2020." 8. On perusal of the record, it appears that there were certainly bona fide reasons for the petitioner not to file the returns. However, this ought not to come in the way of the petitioner in losing its registration. The reasons being due to internal conflicts in the family and the petitioner required to be away from the country. Also we find substance in the contentions are urged on behalf of the petitioner that the Appellate Authority could not have condoned the delay beyond the statutory stipulations on limitation and entertained the appeal. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, following the mandate of law as laid down in the decisions as discussed by us hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the petition needs....