Permanent cancellation of GST registration is considered a 'civil death' to livelihood; thus, if a taxpayer complies with statutory tax obligations, revocation applications should be decided on merits rather than being rejected solely on the ground of limitation.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present writ application has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

“i. For issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside order dated 21.07.2025 passed by Additional Commissioner, (Appeals), Muzaffarpur in Appeal Case No. GST-403/Pat/2025-26, whereby and whereunder the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner solely on the ground of limitation, without adjudicatingthe case of merits.

ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for setting aside Ex Parte Order bearing reference no. ZA100424049946J dated 22.04.2024, passed by Respondent Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise, Muzaffarpur, East Range, whereby and whereunder respondent authority proceeded ex- parte and vide order dated 22.04.2024, without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner cancelled the GST registration of the petitioner and the impugned order has been passed without assigning any cogent reasons and specifying the period of default, thereby renderingthe order non-speaking and unsustainable in law.

iii. For Issuance of Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent authority to restore the GST Registration of the Petitioner after revocation of cancellation of registration with immediate effect, as the petitioner had already furnished the pending returns of previous years and further undertake to filed any Pending Return or make payment of any pending tax if any, assessed by respondent authority within Fifteen Days from the date of the Order of thisHon'ble Court.

iv. For issuance of an appropriate Writ(s), order(S), and/or direction(s), as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case in the interest of justice.”

Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was furnishing the annual as well as the monthly returns under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BGST Act’), however, due to some unavoidable circumstances which rendered him immobile and he was unable to manage the affairs of his business effectively during the relevant period, his returns could not be filed in time. The petitioner admits that because of his illness and resulting incapacity, the return wasnot filed for six months.

4. In the writ application, the petitioner submits that the show cause notice (in short ‘SCN’) was uploaded on the web portal and the petitioner was directed to submit his show cause within a period of 30 days from the date of service of notice. It is, however, his case that while the authorities fixed 07.03.2024 as the date for filing of the show cause, the date of hearing was fixed even prior to that, on 05.03.2024. In this regard, learned counsel has pointed out from Annexure ‘P/2’ dated 06.02.2024 that the petitioner had to furnish a reply to the notice within 30 days from the date of service of notice. It is submitted that in terms of the scheme of Section 75(4) of the BGST Act, the date of personal hearing was required to be fixed only after the authorities would not have been convinced with the show cause and an adverse order was contemplated. Thus, fixing a date for hearing on 05.03.2024 in the show cause notice (SCN) dated 06.02.2024 was an emptyformality.

5. Learned counsel submits that the consultant of the petitioner failed to inform the petitioner about the SCN and the non-filing of the return, therefore, the petitioner was not aware about the issuance of SCN and no response could be submitted intime.

6. It is submitted that by way of an ex-parte order passed on 22.04.2024 (Annexure ‘P/3’), the registration of the petitioner has been cancelled. The petitioner, however, submitted the returns in GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 as also made the payment of all pending taxes. He also paid the late fee and the penalt