Patna High Court
Shri Girivar Alloys Private LimitedversusCommissioner Central GST and Central Excise
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the statutory remedy precludes writ jurisdiction for the registration cancellation and that interference with the ITC blocking would intrude upon an ongoing investigation.
Summary
Girivar Alloys Private Limited challenged the cancellation of its GST registration and the blocking of its input tax credit (ITC). The petitioner claimed the cancellation order under Section 16 of the CGST Act and Rule 21(e) of the CGST Rules was issued without a reasoned order, violating natural justice and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It also sought relief against an email dated 21.07.2025 that blocked ITC without a prior notice, alleging contravention of Rule 86A and a CBEC circular. The court observed that the petitioner has a specific statutory remedy under Rule 23/Section 30 to seek revocation of the registration cancellation, and therefore the writ court cannot entertain the challenge. Regarding the ITC blocking, the court held that interfering would amount to meddling in an ongoing investigation and the petitioner must pursue the appropriate remedial forum. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as having no merit.
Issues considered
- Whether a cancellation of GST registration under Section 16 of the CGST Act and Rule 21(e) of the CGST Rules can be challenged in writ jurisdiction when a specific statutory remedy under Rule 23/Section 30 exists.
- Whether the email blocking ITC without prior notice violates Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, the CBEC circular, and the principles of natural justice.
- Whether the High Court can interfere with an ongoing GST investigation concerning alleged fraudulent ITC.
Legislation cited
- Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — s. 16, 30, 74
- Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 — s. 21(e), 23, 86A
Subjects
- GST
- Input Tax Credit
- Registration Cancellation
- Natural Justice
- Writ Jurisdiction
- CGST Act
- CGST Rules
- Investigation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.842 of 2026
======================================================
Shri Girivar Alloys Private Limited a company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956 having its Head Office at Chainpur, Pakri Dixit,
Chakiya Keshariya Road, Chakia, Purbi Champaran, Bihar- 845412 through
its director Pravin Kumar Giri (Male, aged about 47 years) son of Shri Daya
Giri, resident of RZK-2/357 D, Behind Sun Sine Public School, Nihal Vihar,
Nangoli, Nilothi, West Delhi, 110041.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Commissioner Central GST and Central Excise Patna II having its office at
3rd, 4th and 5th Floor, CTTC Budling, Sanchar Parisad, Buddh Marg, Patna
- 800001.
2. Addl. Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Regional Unit,
Jamshedpur having its office at 2nd and 3rd floor, Shaurya Trade Centre,
159 Dhalbhum Road, Sakchi, Jamshedpur - 831001
3. Asst. Commissioner (Anti Evasion), Central GST and Central Excise, Patna
II having its office at 3rd, 4th and 5th Floor, CTTC Bulding, Sanchar
Parisad, Buddh Marg, Patna - 800001
4. Asst. Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise, Muzaffarpur
Division, Muzaffarpur, Bihar
5. Superintendent, Central G.S.T Department, Motihari Range, Motihari, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sadashiv Tiwari, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Sriram Krishna, Sr. St. Counsel, CGST/CX
Ms. Shilpi Keshri, Jr. St. Counsel, CGST/CX
Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Amarjeet, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
2 23-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the CGST.
2. The petitioner in the present case is seeking the
following reliefs:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.842 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
2/5
“(i) The e mail dated 21.07.2025 issued by the Team
GSTN (as contained in Annexure- P8 series)
informing blocking of input tax credit by the
respondent no. 4 without him giving a notice
affording hearing, passing a reasoned and speaking
order in terms of Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017
(hereinafter called the Rules) contrary to the
guidelines issued by the Central Board of Indirect
Taxes and Customs GST Policy Wing in Circular No.
CBEC- 20/16/05/2021- GST dated 02.11.2021 and
also communication or service thereof being in
violation of the principles of natural justice be set
aside and quashed.
(ii) The order dated 10.12.2025 (as contained in
Annexure – P/12) passed by the respondent no. 5
cancelling registration on the ground of violation of
Section 16 of the Act read with Rule 21 (e) of the
Rules without passing a reasoned and speaking order
and also being in violation of Article 19 (1)(g) of the
Constitution of India be set aside and quashed.
(iii) For granting any other relief (s) to which the
petitioner is otherwise found entitled to.”
3. It appears on perusal of the pleadings present in the
writ application that the petitioner is aggrieved by the
cancellation of registration by respondent no. 5 vide Annexure-
P-12 on the ground of violation of Section 16 of the Act of 2017
read with Rule 21 (e) of the CGST Rules, 2017. On perusal of
Annexure-P-12 in Form GST REG-19 would show that the
order for cancellation of registration contains reasons. Rule
21(e) prescribes one of the grounds on which registration may
Patna High Court CWJC No.842 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
3/5
be cancelled. “ if any persons avails input tax credit in violation
of the provisions of Section 16 of the Act, his registration would
be liable to be cancelled. Section 16 under Chapter-V of the
CGST Act, 2017 provides the eligibility and conditions for
taking into tax credit.
4. Against the order of cancellation of registration, the
petitioner has got statutory remedy in terms of Rule 23
whereunder the petitioner can apply for revocation of
cancellation of registration within a period of 90 days from the
date of the service of the order of cancellation of registration.
This power to revoke the order of cancellation of registration is
provided under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017. There being
statutory efficacious remedy available to the petitioner, this
Court would not entertain a challenge to the order for
cancellation of registration of the petitioner in its extra ordinary
writ jurisdiction.
5. The petitioner further wants this Court to interfere
with the communication contained in e-mail dated 21.07.2025
(Annexure- P-8 series) whereby the petitioner has been
informed about the blocking of input tax credit by respondent
no. 4. A perusal of Annexure- P-8 would show that input tax
credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 10,55,789/- had been blocked by
Patna High Court CWJC No.842 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
4/5
the Assistant Commissioner, Muzaffarpur Division. The
petitioner approached the Assistant Commissioner vide
Annexure – P/9 by submitting a representation. In his response
(Annexure- P/9), the petitioner has himself stated the reason
which reads as under :-
“ …….This blocking was carried out on the ground
that one of our suppliers was found “non-functioning”
in a later verification as per DGGI Jamshedpur Alert
No. 1/2025 dated 07.04.2025.”
6. The petitioner has given the factual chronology. It
is submitted that suppliers GST invoices have been duly
reported in the petitioner’s GSTR-3B returns and appear in its
GSTR-2A for the relevant tax periods. However, the petitioner
admits that subsequently, the supplier applied for voluntary
cancellation, which was approved after completion of all
transactions with the petitioner. The petitioner claims that he
was never informed by the GST Department that the supplier’s
registration was under threat of cancellation during the said
transaction. It appears from Annexure- P-11 dated 22.10.2025
that the petitioner was informed earlier about the availing of the
fake ITC amounting to Rs. 59,65,463/- from non-existent firms
for which its GTIN was suspended in accordance with the
standing order dated 06.01.2025. We have noticed from
Patna High Court CWJC No.842 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
5/5
Annexure- P-7 series dated 08.05.2025 that investigation against
recipients of non-existent firms is going on. There are
allegations of fake/non-existent firms having passed on
fraudulent ITC to the petitioner’s firm. The petitioner had been
called upon to reverse/pay the ITC amounting to Rs. 59,65,463/-
along with the applicable interest and penalty and submit DRC-
03 within seven days of the receipt of the letter and
communicate to the office, failing which further proceedings
will be initiated under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017.
7. Having taken note of the facts appearing from the
records, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prayer
made by the petitioner to interfere with the e-mail dated
21.07.2025 (Annexure- P-8 series) cannot be entertained by this
Court as it would amount to interfering with the ongoing
investigation. The petitioner, if so advised, may avail its remedy
before an appropriate forum in accordance with law.
8. This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed
accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
( Soni Shrivastava, J)
devendra/priyanka/
U
Checking your session…