Bombay High Court
OMBRE PHOTOGRAPHYversusUNION OF INDIA
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that the GST authority must decide the petitioner’s registration application within eight weeks, notwithstanding the technical lockout.
Summary
Ombre Photography filed a writ petition alleging that the GST authority (respondent No.5) failed to consider its application for permanent/final GST registration due to alleged technical mismatches with PAN records and a system lockout. The respondents argued that the lockout resulted from standard cyber security protocols and that the local officer could not rectify the portal issue, but that the authority still had jurisdiction to grant registration. The petitioners contended that despite service, respondent No.5 did not appear to address the grievance. The Court allowed the petition, directing respondent No.5 to decide the application within eight weeks of the order. The Court clarified that the order does not prejudice the authority's right to decide the application in accordance with law, and the petition was disposed accordingly.
Issues considered
- What is the legal duty of the GST authority to process a pending registration application when technical lockout issues arise?
- Does the petitioner have a right to compel the GST authority to decide the application within a specified time?
- Does the jurisdiction of respondent No.5 extend to adjudicating the registration despite portal failures?
Subjects
- GST registration
- administrative law
- cyber security lockout
- jurisdiction
- writ petition
- service of notice
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
RUPALI 52-WP-37-2024.doc
RUPALI RAJESH
RAJESH WAKODIKAR
WAKODIKAR Date:
2026.09.11
14:15:48
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 37 OF 2024
Ombre Photography ...Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents
Ms. Shanmuga a/w Sriram Sridharan i/b Sriram Sridharan for the
Petitioner.
Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl.G.P a/w Mr. Himanshu Takke, A.G.P for the
Respondent-State.
Ms. Sangita Yadav for the Respondent Nos.1,3 and 4.
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D. PATIL JJ.
DATE : 8th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :
1. The petitioner is making a grievance that the respondent
No. 5 is not considering his application for grant of permanent/final
GST registration.
Wakodikar 1/3
52-WP-37-2024.doc
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1
to 4 submitted that due to certain technical difficulties namely that
the petitioner has submitted certain documents and details which
mismatched with the PAN records on the portal, the repetitive
incorrect login attempts led to system lockout as per standard cyber
security protocol. It is submitted that the local jurisdictional officer
does not manage portal algorithms or password locks and the
procedure for rectification was not available with the officers posted
at that time at the GST office. They submitted that the respondent
No. 5 has jurisdiction to grant the registration after the online
attempt failed on the part of the petitioner.
3. Inspite of service, none appeared for the respondent No.5.
4. In these circumstances, we allow the petition. The
respondent No. 5 is directed to decide the application of the
petitioner for registration, as prayed in the present petition, within a
Wakodikar 2/3
52-WP-37-2024.doc
period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.
5. We make it clear that passing of this order will not come
in the way of the respondent No. 5 in deciding the application in
accordance with law.
6. Petition disposed of accordingly.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Wakodikar 3/3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.