The Patna High Court has held that the fresh Goods and Service Tax (GST) registration application can’t be rejected without reasoned order.
The bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey held that the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Madhubani, erred in rejecting the firm’s application for GST registration without recording findings as per the CBIC Circular No. 95/14/2019-GST and Section 29(2) of the CGST Act, 2017.
The petitioner, M/s Maharaj Ji Enterprises, a firm based in Madhubani, Bihar, had its GST registration cancelled in February 2023 due to non-filing of returns for over six months. The petitioner, Amit Kumar Maharaj, admitted to the default but claimed that due to technical limitations on the GST portal, he was unable to file past returns when reapplying for a fresh registration.
The Deputy Commissioner rejected the new application on August 17, 2024, without providing reasons, prompting the firm to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court held that while an assessee is expected to seek revocation or appeal the cancellation of registration, there is no absolute statutory bar on filing a fresh application. Importantly, CBIC guidelines state that rejection is permissible only after the proper officer records specific findings that conditions for cancellation under Section 29(2)(b) or (c) still exist and no revocation request has been made.
The bench observed that the rejection order was entirely unreasoned and did not even refer to the grounds mentioned in the show-cause notice.
The Court stated, “On a bare reading of the circular, it is crystal clear that a fresh application for registration is not barred… However, the Proper Officer must record a finding… That was completely absent here.”
Setting aside the rejection order, the Court remanded the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Madhubani, directing him to reconsider the application in accordance with law and after giving the petitioner an opportunity to meet compliance requirements.
Case Details
Case Title: M/s Maharaj Ji Enterprises Versus The Union of India
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15175 of 2024
Date: 16-07-2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Brisketu Sharan Pandey
Counsel For Respondent: Pratyush Kumar
Read More: No GST Payable On Regulatory Functions of CERC, DGGI SLP Dismissed: Supreme Court
