DIPAK METAL INDUSTRIES (PROP. RAHUL RAJ) vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

10-WP-10026-2025.DOCX Pallavi IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10026 OF 2025 M/s. Dipak Metal Industries (Prop. Rahul Raj) … Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Vasai … Respondent ______________________________________________________ Mr. Devendra B. Harnesha, for Petitioner. Ms. S.D. Vyas, Addl. G.P., a/w Mr. M.M. Pabale, AGP for Respondent - State. ______________________________________________________ CORAM : M.S. Sonak & Advait M. Sethna, JJ. DATED : 22 September 2025 Oral Judgment:- Per (M.S. Sonak, J.):- 1. Heard Mr Devendra Harnesha, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms Shruti Vyas, learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondent – State. 2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioner challenges the order dated 22 July 2024 made by the Revisional Authorities under Section 108 of the CGST/MGST Act, 2017, revising the cancellation order Page 1 of 6 10-WP-10026-2025.DOCX dated 22 June 2022 and retrospectively cancelling the Petitioner’s GST registration from 12 August 2017, i.e. the date of initial registration. 4. Normally, we do not entertain petitions when the Petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy available. However, Mr Harnesha pointed out that the Appeal lies to the Tribunal, which is yet to be constituted or function. Furthermore, he pointed out that the Petitioner alleges a gross violation of natural justice, which is one of the exceptions to the rule of exhausting alternative remedies. 5. Mr Harnesha states that no show-cause notice or notice of the Revisional proceedings were served upon the Petitioner, and therefore, the Revisional order dated 22 July 2024 must