Bombay High Court

SHRI DATT STONE CRUSHER THR ITS PROPRIETOR ACHYUT J MURKUTEversusTHE COMMISSIONER STATE GST BHAVAN AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The High Court quashed the cancellation order and the appeal order, restoring the petitioner’s GST registration from 29‑02‑2024, subject to compliance with filing returns and payment of dues.

Summary

The petitioner, Datt Stone Crusher, challenged the cancellation of its GST registration dated 24‑11‑2024 and a subsequent order dated 17‑11‑2025 passed by the Commissioner (Appeal). It sought quashing of both orders, restoration of its registration from 29‑02‑2024 and permission to file pending returns. The respondents argued that the appeal was filed out of time and the Commissioner lacked authority to condone the delay. Relying on earlier High Court decisions and the constitutional guarantee of the right to carry on trade under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21, the Court held that strict adherence to the limitation provision could not defeat the petitioner’s fundamental right. The Court therefore set aside both orders, restored the GST registration effective 29‑02‑2024, and conditioned the restoration on filing up‑to‑date returns and payment of all dues with interest, penalty and late fees. The writ petition was allowed.

Issues considered

The cancellation of GST registration under the MGST Act can be set aside despite the appeal being filed beyond the period prescribed in Section 107.
Whether the limitation provision of Section 107(1) and 107(4) can be invoked to deny a taxpayer the constitutional right to carry on trade and profession.
Whether the Commissioner (Appeal) has the power to condone delay beyond 30 days in filing an appeal under the MGST Act.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 — s. 107
Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 — s. 23

Subjects

GST registration cancellation
Section 107 limitation
constitutional right to trade
quash order
high court writ petition
taxpayer rights
Maharashtra GST Act

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:37826-DB

{1} wp10223-26.doc
drp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.10223 OF 2026

Shri Datt Stone Crusher Through its Proprietor
Achyut J. Murkute PETITIONER

VERSUS

The Commissioner of State GST and Others RESPONDENTS

.......
Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. N. D. Batule, AGP for Respondent - State
.......
[CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, &
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. J.]

DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026
ORDER :

1. By this Petition, the Petitioner is seeking following reliefs:

“B. That the Hon’ble Court may quash and set aside the order
dt.24.11.2024 and permit the petitioner to file the return.

C. That the order in Appeal bearing reference no.
AD271025017177B dt. 17.11.2025 passed by Commissioner
(Appeal) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

D. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly restore the petitioner
registration w.e.f. 29.2.2024”

2. In support of the petition, the Petitioner relies on the

following decisions:

i. Rohit Enterprises V/s. The Commissioner State GST; 2023
(2) TMI-759 Bom HC.
{2} wp10223-26.doc

ii. M/s. Sambhaji Multi Services V/s. The Commissioner State
GST; 2024 (7) TMI 804 – Bom HC.

iii. Shri Ganesh Majoor Sahkari Sanstha Limited V/s. The Union
of India 2024 (12) TMI 57 Bom HC

iv. Neo Built V/s ETO Cum Proper Officer; 2022 (6) TMI 463
(Punjab and Haryana High Court)

v. ENS Enterprises V/s. The Superintendent, GST 2024 (1) TMI
1363 (Madras High Court)

4. Learned AGP strenuously opposed the petition stating that

there is a delay in filing the appeal and the Commissioner has no

authority to condone the delay. Therefore, no fault can be found

with the impugned order.

5. This Court in similar facts in “Rohit Enterprises” (supra)

has observed as follows:

“5. The petitioner filed appeal under section 107 of the
Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 challenging
cancellation of registration. It was registered as Appeal No.
DCST/Appl./E-001/GST-Revocation/2022-2023/B-619. The Dy.
Commissioner/State Tax (Appeal), Aurangabad Division rejected the
appeal on the ground of limitation that the appeal has been
submitted beyond the prescribed period provided under section 107
(1) and 107 (4) of the MGST Act, 2017.

9. In our view, the provisions of GST enactment cannot be
interpreted so as to deny right to carry on Trade and Commerce to
{3} wp10223-26.doc

any citizen and subjects. The constitutional guarantee is
unconditional and unequivocal and must be enforced regardless of
shortcomings in the scheme of GST enactment. The right to carry on
trade or profession cannot be curtailed contrary to the constitutional
guarantee under Art. 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. If the person like petitioner is not allowed to revive the
registration, the state would suffer loss of revenue and the ultimate
goal under GST regime will stand defeated. The petitioner deserves a
chance to come back into GST fold and carry on his business in
legitimate manner.

10. There is one more aspect as far as the issue regarding
limitation in filing the appeal under Section 107 of MGST Act is
concerned. Indeed the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax has no
power to condone the delay beyond 30 days. But then one cannot
overlook the aspect of provisions stipulating limitations. The
objective is to terminate the lis and not to divest a person of the right
vested in him by efflux of time.

11. Since it is merely a matter of cancellation of registration, the
question of limitation should not bother us since it cannot be said
that any right has accrued to the State which would rather be
adversely affected by cancellation.

12. In this regard, a reference can be made to the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs Union of
India reported in (1997) 5 SCC 536. The supreme court observed
that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the
Constitution of India or Supreme Court under Article 32 cannot be
restricted by the provision of any Act to bar or curtail remedies. True
that while exercising the constitutional power, the Court would
certainly take note of legislative intent manifested in the provisions
of the Act and would exercise jurisdiction consistent with the
{4} wp10223-26.doc

provisions of enactment. The constitutional Courts in exercise of
such powers cannot ignore law nor can it override it”

6. This decision is followed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court

in Shri Ganesh Majoor Sahkari Sanstha Limited (Supra). Writ

Petition therefore deserves to be allowed.

7. In other decisions relied upon by the Petitioner similar view

is taken, however, different reliefs are granted in the facts of

those cases.

8. In the result, Writ Petition is allowed. Order dated

28.11.2024 canceling the GST registration of the Petitioner

passed by the State Tax Officer and the order dated 17.11.2025

passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax Ref.

No.AD271025017177B) are quashed and set side.

9. We hold that the registration no. GSTIN

27ARDPM3738K2ZG in the name of Petitioner is valid from

29.02.2024 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 the MGST Rules 2017.

[ ABASAHEB D. SHINDE ] [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
drp/wp10223-26.doc

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…