M/S.The Trinity vs. The Superintendent Of Central Tax

Held

The Court, without commenting on the merits of the case, granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority within one week from the date of the order for submission of an application for revocation of GST registration cancellation. The petitioner was directed to attempt to submit the application online, and if it was not accepted for technical reasons, to submit it in physical form. The competent authority was directed to entertain the application and decide it in accordance with the law within three weeks thereafter. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. The Trinity, represented by its proprietor, challenged the cancellation of its GST registration by the Superintendent of Central Tax (1st Respondent). The cancellation order, dated 08.08.2025, was issued for non-filing of GST returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner contended that due to a newly engaged accountant, they were unaware of the show cause notice and the subsequent cancellation order. They sought a direction to allow them to file an application for revocation of cancellation, even if the online portal had expired the time limit, and for the competent authority to consider it. The petitioner also sought suspension of the cancellation order pending the disposal of the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the 1st Respondent in cancelling the Petitioner's GST registration solely for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months is illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, contrary to law, and in contravention of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and Section 37(5) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The cancellation was illegal and arbitrary, violating natural justice and the fundamental right to carry on business. The non-filing was due to an accountant's oversight, and they were unaware of the proceedings. They should be allowed to file a revocation application physically despite the online portal's time expiry. Respondents' arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents regarding the legality of the cancellation or the petitioner's right to file a revocation application. However, they indicated that a manual application for revocation would be considered.