Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/S Arvind Brothers, through its partner Kishore Amrutlal Harsora, filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the Addl./Joint Commissioner and others, including Respondent No.3, who occupies premises let out by the petitioner. The petitioner had earlier filed Special Civil Suit No.351 of 2020 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, against Respondent No.3; that suit's plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on Respondent No.3's application, and the petitioner's appeal, RCA No.141 of 2023, is pending before the District Judge, CBD Belapur. Relying on a letter dated 15 November 2019, the petitioner asked Respondents 1 and 2 to cancel Respondent No.3's GST registration granted on the address of the petitioner's premises under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act and the Maharashtra GST Act, and sought interim orders restraining Respondent No.3 from using the premises or creating third-party rights pending disposal.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the High Court, in writ jurisdiction, can adjudicate disputed questions of fact concerning rights over the premises between the petitioner and Respondent No.3.
  2. Whether Respondent No.3's GST registration on the petitioner's premises can be cancelled directly by the Court absent a decision by the designated GST officer.
  3. What is the appropriate remedy available to a property owner aggrieved by a third party's continued GST registration on disputed premises.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Respondent No.3 has no subsisting legal right, title or interest in the petitioner's premises and therefore could not have obtained or continued to avail GST registration on that address.
  • The letter dated 15 November 2019 issued by Respondent No.2 itself supported cancellation of Respondent No.3's GST number, and the authorities ought to act on it.
  • Pending final disposal, interim protection was necessary to restrain Respondent No.3 from using the premises or creating further third-party rights, and to suspend its GST number so no fait accompli could be created while the writ was pending.
  • Absent urgent intervention, the petitioner's civil remedies would be rendered ineffective by continued misuse of the GST registration tied to its property.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Counsel for the State (Respondents 1 & 2) and for Respondent No.3 appeared and were heard, though the order does not record any elaborate contention beyond their presence.
  • The underlying record shows the dispute over the premises is essentially a private civil dispute — the petitioner's own civil suit against Respondent No.3 had already been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, with an appeal pending, indicating the title/possession question was not one for the writ court to resolve on affidavits.
  • Implicit in the respondents' stand was that any grievance regarding registration should follow the statutory process before the designated GST officer rather than be decided directly by the Court.

Court Order/Findings

  • The Court observed that the petitioner and Respondent No.3 have a private dispute over the premises, already the subject of a civil suit (dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC) and a pending first appeal.
  • Disputed questions of fact as to the parties' rights inter se over the premises cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings; if the grievance is valid from the standpoint of the CGST/MGST Acts, the petitioner must make a detailed representation, with specific prayers, to the designated officer.
  • Directions: representation to be filed within two weeks, with a copy served on Respondent No.3; Respondent No.3 permitted to file its reply within one week of service; the designated officer to hear both parties and pass appropriate orders within four weeks of the representation.
  • All contentions of the parties were expressly kept open, and the scope of the officer's consideration was confined strictly to the registration issue under the CGST/MGST Acts. Petition disposed of, no costs.

Important Clarification

  • A private landlord's grievance that a third party's GST registration was wrongly obtained at its premises cannot be resolved through a writ petition; it must be raised before the designated/jurisdictional GST officer under the CGST/MGST Acts.
  • Pendency or outcome of a civil suit over title or possession does not, by itself, entitle a party to interim relief against a competing GST registration in writ jurisdiction.
  • Where a High Court relegates such a grievance to the department, it is useful to seek a bound timeline for representation, reply and disposal, as was fixed here (two weeks/one week/four weeks).
  • The designated officer's inquiry in such cases is confined to the registration question under GST law and does not extend into deciding title or possession disputes between private parties.

Sections Involved

  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — governs grant, cancellation and revocation of GST registration of a taxable person.
  • Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — the State counterpart under which Respondent No.3's registration was also examinable.
  • Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — basis on which the petitioner's parallel civil suit for possession was rejected.
  • Article 226, Constitution of India — writ jurisdiction invoked by the petitioner seeking mandamus and interim injunctions.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of with directions; neither party obtained a decision on merits. The petitioner's grievance regarding cancellation of Respondent No.3's GST registration was neither accepted nor rejected — it was remitted to the designated GST officer for adjudication after hearing both sides, with all contentions expressly kept open. This is best read as a procedural outcome rather than a substantive win for either the Assessee or the Department.

Related Case Laws

No directly on-point case notes are currently published on this site.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay
  • Case No.: Writ Petition No. 1411 of 2022
  • CNR: Not available on record
  • Coram: G. S. Kulkarni & Jitendra Jain, JJ.
  • Decision Date: October 3, 2023
  • Disposal Nature: Disposed of — petitioner directed to make representation to the designated GST officer on registration cancellation

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.