The Patna High Court in the case of M/S MAHARAJ JI ENTERPRISES VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA, THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA, THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA, THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST, PATNA, BIHAR, THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES, MADHUBANI, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STATE TAXES, MADHUBANI, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI vide Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15175 of 2024 dated 16.07.2025, held that fresh GST registration is not barred even if earlier registration is cancelled, unless the officer provides valid, recorded reasons in terms of Section 29(2)(b)/(c) and the circular. Reference made to CBIC Circular No. 95/14/2019-GST dated 28.03.2019, that fresh registration is not barred, but the Proper Officer must verify whether the conditions mentioned in Section 29(2)(b) and (c) are still continuing, and specifically record a finding to that effect. Rejection of registration application quashed. Matter remanded to Proper Officer for fresh consideration after recording necessary findings in accordance with law.

Facts of the Case: In this case, the petitioner’s previous GST registration was cancelled under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act due to non-filing of returns. The petitioner did not file an appeal or revocation application against the cancellation. Instead, filed a fresh application for GST registration.

The Proper Officer rejected the fresh registration application without assigning any cogent reasons or making any reference to the required legal provisions. The rejection was later justified in a counter affidavit based on reasons not originally disclosed in the SCN.

The petitioner contended that such unreasoned rejection was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice and CBIC Circular No. 95/14/2019-GST dated 28.03.2019.

Issue: Whether a fresh GST registration can be denied solely on the ground that the previous registration was cancelled and no revocation/appeal was filed. Whether the rejection order was valid in law when it did not contain any reasoned findings, nor did it comply with the requirements of CBIC Circular No. 95/14/2019-GST.

Held that: The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had available statutory remedies—either to seek revocation of cancellation of the earlier GST registration or to file an appeal against such cancellation. However, the petitioner opted not to avail either remedy and instead filed a fresh application for GST registration. Despite this, the Court held that filing a fresh application for registration is not barred under the CGST Act, 2017, especially when no application for revocation was filed, and the conditions under Section 29(2)(b) and (c) (regarding tax compliance and furnishing of returns) continue to apply.

Further, the Court referred to CBIC Circular No. 95/14/2019-GST dated 28.03.2019, which clearly provides that, “Fresh registration is not barred, but the Proper Officer must verify whether the conditions mentioned in Section 29(2)(b) and (c) are still continuing, and specifically record a finding to that effect.” However, in this case, no such findings were recorded by the Proper Officer while rejecting the fresh registration.

The Court found that the rejection order was a non-speaking, unreasoned order. The reasons disclosed in the counter affidavit filed by the department were not reflected in the original rejection notice or in the clarification notice. Also, there was no reference to Section 29(2)(b) in the rejection communication, which was mandatory as per the circular and statute.

The Court held that issuing an unreasoned order without giving the petitioner a meaningful opportunity to be heard or addressing the statutory requirements constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Proper Officer was directed to apply his mind, consider the provisions of Section 29(2)(b) and the CBIC Circular, and pass a reasoned and speaking order after granting opportunity of hearing.

To read the complete judgment 2025 Taxo.online 1560