Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Shiv Samarth Industries (UDYAM-registered proprietorship, GSTIN 27BQKPB2144K1ZW), represented by its proprietor, challenged three orders: the cancellation of its GST registration by the State Tax Officer dated 14.03.2022, the suspension of registration dated 09.01.2024 with effect from 31.05.2023, and the rejection of its appeal by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dated 07.11.2024. The petitioner also sought a declaration that its registration remained valid from 24.11.2021 onwards. The matter came up before the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench, along with a connected civil application, under Article 226.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the appellate order rejecting the petitioner's challenge to cancellation/suspension of its GST registration was sustainable.
  2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to restoration of registration, and on what conditions.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The case was squarely covered by the Bombay High Court's decision in Rohit Enterprises v. Commissioner, State GST Bhavan and Ors., 2023 CJ(Bom) 966, which favoured restoration of registration in similar circumstances.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The State relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in M/s. Fone Zone NXT v. Commissioner of DGST, where a petition on a similar fact situation was rejected.
  • The State also relied on a Coordinate Bench decision of the same Bombay High Court in M/s. Sambhaji Multi Services v. The Commissioner, State GST Bhavan and Ors. (Writ Petition No. 393 of 2024).

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held that the petitioner's case was squarely covered by its own precedent in Rohit Enterprises, which it had already followed in Sambhaji Multi Services, and declined to follow the contrary view of the Delhi High Court since it was bound by its own coordinate decision.
  • Following the approach taken in Sambhaji Multi Services, the Court allowed the petition on a token cost of Rs. 5,000/-, declining the State's request for a heavier cost given that the petitioner's business was still at a development stage.
  • The impugned appellate order dated 07.11.2024 was quashed and the matter remitted to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), subject to the petitioner depositing the cost, appearing with six months' returns, and clearing pending dues with interest, penalty and late fees under Rule 23(1) of the MGST Rules, 2017, within 45 days.
  • The Court declared that the petitioner's registration (GSTIN 27BQKPB2144K1ZW) is valid from 24.11.2021.

Important Clarification

Where a coordinate bench of the same High Court has already settled the legal position on restoration of cancelled GST registrations (following Rohit Enterprises), that precedent binds subsequent benches even where a different High Court has taken a contrary view; restoration can still be conditioned on payment of a token cost and compliance with pending return-filing and dues-clearance requirements.

Sections Involved

  • Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017 – governs cancellation and suspension of GST registration.
  • Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017 – governs revocation of cancellation of registration.
  • Rule 23(1) of the Maharashtra GST Rules, 2017 – prescribes conditions (filing of returns, payment of dues, interest, penalty and late fees) for revocation of cancelled registration.

Decision – In Favour of

The decision was in favour of the Assessee, with the cancellation-related appellate order quashed and the petitioner's registration restored and declared valid from 24.11.2021, subject to payment of cost and compliance conditions.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad
  • Case Number: Writ Petition No. 14089 of 2024 (with Civil Application No. 1242 of 2026)
  • Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:17900-DB
  • Coram: Nitin B. Suryawanshi and Vaishali Patil-Jadhav, JJ.
  • Date of Order: 17 April 2026

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

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.