2025:HHC:37918 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11247 of 2025 Date of decision: 12th November, 2025 Barkat Ali. ...Petitioner. Versus Union of India & Ors. …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Ms. Vidushi Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent No.1-UOI. : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.2- State. : Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, Senior Advocate with Ms. Godawari, Advocate, for respondents No.3 & 4. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral) Present petition has been preferred seeking following substantive relief:- “(a) Issuance of writ in nature of Certiorari for quashing of impugned order dated 19.03.2024 (Annexure P-3) whereby GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled suo-moto by the respondent no. 3 and 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 2025:HHC:37918 Impugned order dated 08.04.2025 (Annexure P-6) whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 19.03.2024 (Annexure P-3) was dismissed only on the ground of barred by limitation, without providing any opportunity of hearing and without passing any speaking order, illegally, erroneously and arbitrarily.” 2. Petitioner has placed on record copy of judgment dated 26.06.2025 passed in CWP No.8022 of 2025 (Anil Kumar vs. Union of India and Others) by Coordinate Division Bench of this High Court with prayer that present petitioner being similarly situated also deserves to be treated alike. 3. Undisputably, the facts and circumstances recorded in above referred judgment in Anil Kumar (supra) are similar to the facts and circumstances of the present case, except the number of days in delay. 4. We are of the considered opinion that being similar nature of the matter, present matter also deserves to be disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 26.06.2025 passed in Anil Kumar (supra), being covered by the said judgment passed in similar set of facts and circumstances. Therefore, the findings returned in Anil Kumar (supra) shall be mutatis mutandis applicable to the case of the petitioner for all intents and purposes. 5. Accordingly, in view of facts and circumstances of the case as well as settled law and legal position referred in judgment in Anil 3 2025:HHC:37918 Kumar’s case (supra), impugned order dated 08.04.2025 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. 6. The matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority, who shall proceed de novo and pass an appropriate, reasoned and speaking order, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. The parties to appear before the learned Authority on 03.12.2025. The Appellate Authority is further directed to decide the same as expeditiously as possible and in no event later than 4th January, 2026. 8. The petition is disposed of in above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Romesh Verma) Judge. 12th November, 2025 (Pardeep)