M/S. Upper Vantage LLP vs. Deputy State Tax Officer

Held

The Court acknowledged the facts and circumstances, particularly that the GST registration was cancelled due to non-filing of returns for prescribed periods. The Court directed that if the petitioner approaches the 1st Respondent within one week from the date of the order for submission of an application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration in physical form, the 1st Respondent shall entertain the application. The 1st Respondent is to take a decision on the application in accordance with the law within three weeks thereafter. The Court disposed of the writ petition with no order as to costs. No specific finding was given on the legality or arbitrariness of the cancellation under Article 19(1)(g) or Section 37(5), as the matter was resolved by directing manual consideration of the revocation application.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Upper Vantage LLP, filed a writ petition challenging the suo motu cancellation of its GST registration by the Deputy State Tax Officer (1st Respondent) on June 25, 2025. The cancellation was based on non-filing of returns for prescribed periods. The petitioner claimed there were no outstanding GST dues and that the non-filing was due to their accountant's personal inconvenience, not intentional delay. They were unable to file a revocation application through the GST portal due to time limitations. The petitioner sought a direction to the 1st Respondent to entertain their application manually and decide it. The respondents' counsel lacked instructions on the assertion of no outstanding dues but confirmed the cancellation was solely for non-filing of returns.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the 1st Respondent in cancelling the GST registration certificate of the petitioner suo motu is illegal, arbitrary, and in contravention of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and Section 37(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 and the Telangana GST Act, 2017? Contentions of the Petitioner: The petitioner argued that the cancellation was illegal and arbitrary, violating their fundamental right to carry on business. They also contended that the non-filing of returns was unintentional and that they had no outstanding dues. They further submitted that the GST portal did not permit them to file a revocation application beyond the prescribed time limit and prayed for manual acceptance of their application. Contentions of the Respondents: The respondents stated that the cancellation was solely due to the non-filing of returns for prescribed periods. They indicated that if directed, the 1st Respondent could entertain the petitioner's application manually, as the portal restrictions prevented submission beyond the time limit.