Shubham Kumar vs The Commissioner of Customs, Central GST and Central Excise

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15282 of 2024
======================================================
Shubham Kumar S/o Jitendra Mishra, resident of village- Salahan, P.O.-
Salahan, P.S.- Govindganj, District- East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
nd
1. The Commissioner of Customs, Central GST and Central Excise Patna, 2
Floor, C.R. Building (Annexe) Birchand Patel Path, Patna, Bihar.
2. The Superintendent of CGST and Excise, Motihari Range Under
Muzaffarpur Division.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Umesh Tiwari, Advocate
For the CGST & CX : Mr. Anshuman Singh, Senior SC
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 18-09-2026


Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Senior Standing Counsel for the Department of CGST & CX.
2. This writ application has been preferred seeking a
writ in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to quash and cancel the
order dated 18.09.2023 passed by Respondent No. 1 in Appeal No.
147/PAT/GST/Appeal/2023-24 whereby the Respondent No. 1 has
dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of Respondent No. 2
passed on 10.03.2023.
3. It is an admitted position that the petitioner could not
file his GST returns for a period of 6 months as a result whereof he
was served with a show cause notice dated 15.01.2023 (Annexure

Patna High Court CWJC No.15282 of 2024 dt.18-09-2026
2/5
‘P/3’) under Rule 22(1)/sub-rule (2A) of Rule 21A. It is the case of
the petitioner that he was ill and was suffering from Jaundice and
internal fever for which he was getting treatment in Sanjeevani
Emergency Hospital. The petitioner has enclosed a copy of the
certificate granted by the Hospital on 15.06.2023 as Annexure
‘P/1’ to the writ application.
4. The petitioner admits that he was unable to file show
cause and had failed to appear on the date of hearing. The
Respondent No. 2 passed a suo motu order dated 10.03.2023
(Annexure ‘P/4’ to the writ application). A perusal of Annexure
‘P/4’ would show that the effective date of cancellation of
registration is 10.03.2023, however, there was no liability on the
petitioner to pay taxes.
5. In the writ application, a statement has been made by
the petitioner that he filed his return on 15.04.2023 for the period
before the registration was cancelled.
6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
Respondents, the Department of CGST & CX has taken a plea that
show cause notice was issued for cancellation of registration
pointing out non-filing of returns for six months. The petitioner did
not respond to the said notice. No authorized representative of the
petitioner was deputed to act on his behalf within the required

Patna High Court CWJC No.15282 of 2024 dt.18-09-2026
3/5
legal framework. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated
10.03.2023 was issued.
7. It is stated that the appeal preferred by the petitioner
has been rightly rejected as the same was presented beyond one
month after three months period of limitation prescribed under
sub-section (94) of Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services
Tax Act, 2017. It is further stated that since the registration of the
petitioner was cancelled on 10.03.2023, the statement that he had
filed the return on 15.04.2023, allegedly for the period before the
cancellation of registration is contradictory.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department of CGST &
CX, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has
claimed in the writ application that he had filed the return on
15.04.2023 for the period before the registration was cancelled.
The words “for the period before the registration was cancelled”
would not mean and be understood in the manner as has been
understood by the respondents in their reply.
9. Further, we find that the petitioner has explained the
reasons for not answering the show cause notice and for not
participating in the hearing of the matter. We have noticed that in
this case, only once, a notice was sent to the petitioner to which he

Patna High Court CWJC No.15282 of 2024 dt.18-09-2026
4/5
could not respond. In the circumstances stated by the petitioner,
since he was unable to respond to the said notice, an adequate
opportunity was required to be given by fixing another date. The
impugned order seems to have been passed without fixing any
other date of hearing.
10. We are of the view that one opportunity is required
to be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court sets aside the
impugned order dated 10.03.2023 by which the registration of the
petitioner has been cancelled.
11. The respondents are directed to give an opportunity
to the petitioner to file his response to the show cause notice and
after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, an
appropriate order shall be passed afresh by the respondents.
12. While considering the case of the petitioner, the
competent authority shall examine the claim of the petitioner
whether return was filed on 15.04.2023 or not. If it is found that
the return was filed, the same would also be taken into
consideration. If the return was not filed, then the competent
authority may take a view as to why the petitioner may not be
permitted to file the return even at this stage with the taxes,
penalty and fine.

Patna High Court CWJC No.15282 of 2024 dt.18-09-2026
5/5
13. Let the whole exercise be completed within a period
of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of
this judgment. The petitioner must co-operate by presenting
himself before the competent authority on the date fixed in the
matter.
14. This writ application is allowed to the extent
indicated hereinabove.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
lekhi/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 19.09.2026
Transmission Date