Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Ritesh KumarversusThe Union of India

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

The petition was disposed of as infructuous because the GST registration had already been restored.

Summary

Ritesh Kumar filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of his GST registration by the Superintendent, Central Excise (GST), Begusarai, alleging that the cancellation was effected without considering his reply. He sought a writ to quash the cancellation order, restoration of his registration, and a direction restraining the respondent from coercive recovery actions. The counsel for the parties informed the court that the GST registration had already been restored, rendering the petition moot. The court accepted this submission and disposed of the petition without further adjudication on the merits. Consequently, no further relief was granted.

Issues considered

  • Whether the cancellation of GST registration without considering the petitioner's reply is valid.
  • Whether the court can order restoration of GST registration through a writ.
  • Whether the petition becomes infructuous upon restoration of registration.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • GST registration
  • cancellation
  • writ petition
  • administrative law
  • restoration

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12712 of 2025
                 ======================================================
                 Ritesh Kumar Son of Late Anil Singh Resident of Village Ratgaon, ward no
                 10, Dularpur, PS Teghra, District Begusarai, having its place of business at
                 Naya Nagar, Dularpur, Ratgaon, District Begusarai.

                                                                               ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus

           1.    The Union of India through the Commissioner, Central Excise (GST),
                 Government of India, Patna.
           2.    The Superintendent, Central Excise (GST), Begusarai, Darbhanga, Bihar.

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s    :       Mr. Chinmay Harsh Karn, Advocate
                                                 Mr.Subhankar Prabhakar, Advocate
                 For the CGST            :       Dr. K.N. Singh, Sr. Advocate
                                                 Mr. Sriram Krishna, Sr. S.C. for CGST
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
                         and
                         HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

                 (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)

4   17-06-2026              The present writ petition has been filed seeking the

                   following reliefs:-

                                    “1. (i) For issuance of appropriate writ or order
                                    for quashing of order dated 26.03.2022 issued vide
                                    Reference      No.        ZA1004220280801             dated
                                    13.04.2022 by the Superintendent, Central Excise
                                    (GST), Begusarai, Darbhanga, Bihar whereby the
                                    GST Registration of the petitioner has been
                                    cancelled;
                                    (ii) For a direction to the Respondent No. 2 to
                                    restore the registration granted under GST Act,
                                    2017 of the petitioner whereby the registration of
         Patna High Court CWJC No.12712 of 2025(4) dt.17-06-2026
                                                    2/2




                                  the petitioner was cancelled without considering
                                  the reply filed by the petitioner;
                                  (iii) For further issuance of a direction restraining
                                  the Respondent No. 2 from taking any coercive
                                  action for recovery of the amount in demand during
                                  pendency of the present writ petition.”
                   2.      At the outset, the Ld. Counsels for the parties submit that

                   the G.S.T. registration of the petitioner firm has already stood

                   restored, hence the present writ petition has been rendered

                   infructuous.

                   3.      Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of.


                                          (Mohit Kumar Shah, J)


                                                 (Raj Kumar, J)
S.Sb/-

U


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.