Sr. No.18 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 2406/2025 CM(6371/2025) SYED SAJAD HUSSAIN(SENIOR CITIZEN) …Petitioner(s)/appellant(s) Through: Mr. Bilal Ahmad Malla, Advocate Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K TH.COMMR/SECTY (FINANCE) AND ORS ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG with Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting Counsel CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.A. CHOWDHARY, JUDGE O R D E R 21.09.2026 1. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s registration under the GST Act 2017 was cancelled. As a result of challenge to the cancellation of registration of GST, there were two orders which were passed, one was under Section 107 of Jammu and Kashmir GST Act 2017 dated 28-09-2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Taxes (Appeals) Kashmir and another order dated 31-07-2024 was passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner State Taxes, (Appeals), Srinagar-respondent No.6. 2. The order of 28-09-2024 was under Section 107 where the appellate authority has disposed of the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner against the cancellation of registration certificate dated 30.08.2023 passed by the STO Circle “Ganderbal” with a direction to the petitioner to deposit the demand amounting to Rs.55,40,245.00 created by the respondent No.4 under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that restoration of registration has been made conditional and submits to that extent he has no issues but the condition of demand which has been raised and has been computed has not been dealt with in the appellate jurisdiction and thus his limited contention is that the demand of Rs.55,40,245.00 which has been raised under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 has been computed in a manner which is prejudicial to the present petitioner. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he seeks appellate adjudication of computation of such demand and other grounds only to the quantum. 5. Mr. Qadri, learned Senior AAG submits that though the order is well within the ambit of law because the registration, if ordered to have been conditionally restored on depositing the demand raised, but at the same time fairly submits that the appellate jurisdiction did not consider the quantum and computation part of the demand. 6. Thus, on such limited submissions, the present petition is disposed of while remanding the matter back to the appellate authority and while maintaining the part of restoration of registration certificate by directing the appellate authority to consider the computation and quantum of the demand raised, after giving them an opportunity of being heard, strictly in accordance with law. (M.A. CHOWDHARY ) (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE SRINAGAR 21.09.2026 Aamir