gavel, auction, hammer-3577255.jpg

Report by Mushkan Vasani

High Court Of Bombay at Aurangabad Bench while hearing the writ petition on 16th February 2023 in the case of Rohit Enterprises (Reg. no. 27AHQPD2485F1Z7) Through its proprietor, Changdeo Punjaji Deokar (Petitioner) Versus The Commissioner State GST Bhavan, The Dy. Commissioner, State Tax (Appeal) and The State Tax Officer. (Respondents), allowed the writ petition by restoring the GST registration number and setting aside the order passed by the State Tax Officer and the Dy. Commissioner, State Tax (Appeal).


In the present case, the petitioner is a proprietary firm engaged in the business of fabrication work. And is registered in the year 2018 under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act) as well as Maharashtra State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Petitioner states that the firm suffered a huge loss in the pandemic situation and the proprietor had undergone angioplasty during that period due to which the GST returns from August 2021 could not be filed.

However, Section 29(2) of the GST Act enables the concerned officer to cancel registration if the registered person/firm fails to furnish three consecutive returns. The State Tax Officer, Aurangabad (Respondent No. 3) issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to furnish his explanation within a period of 7 working days. The notice stipulated that the registration of the petitioner stood suspended. The petitioner replied to the notice within the given period citing the reason for the financial crunch. However, the State Tax Officer vide its order dated 14-03-2022 cancelled the registration with effect from 28-02-2022.

The petitioner requested for revocation of the cancellation of registration but the State Tax Officer issued a notice for rejection of the application. The petitioner was called upon to furnish the reply within 7 days along with some specific documents and a late filing penalty. The matter was taken up for hearing and finally, the State Tax Officer vide its order rejected the application of the petitioner seeking revocation of cancellation.

Further, the petitioner filed an appeal challenging cancellation of registration before the Dy. Commissioner/State Tax (Appeal), Aurangabad Division but however the appeal was rejected on technical grounds as it was time-barred and hence this petition is filed before this Hon’ble Court.


The petitioner contended before this hon’ble court that :

  1. The order passed by the Dy. Commissioner (Appeal) Aurangabad (Appellate authority) be set aside and quashed.
  2. The Order passed by the State Tax Officer for cancellation of registration and suspending the registration w.e.f. 28.2.2022 may kindly be quashed and set aside.
  3. And Finally that the petitioner registration no.27AHQPD2485F1Z7 is valid from 28.02.2022 onwards.


The respondents supported the impugned order.


The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Bench while referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs Union of India reported in (1997) allowed the petition by quashing the order dated 28-02-2022 suspending the GST registration, the order dated 14-03-2022 cancelling GST registration of the petitioner passed by the State Tax Officer and the order dated 21-10-2022 passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Tax, Aurangabad (Appeal) (Appellate Authority) and declared that the registration No.27AHQPD2485F1Z7 in the name of the petitioner is valid from 28-02-2022 onwards subject to the condition that the petitioner files up-to-date GST returns and deposits entire pending dues along with applicable interest, penalty, late fees in terms of Rule 23 (1) of MAST Rules, 2017


CITATION: (1997) 5 SCC 536

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *