Uday Agro Technology PVT LTD vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
M/s. Uday Agro Technology Pvt. Ltd. (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The cancellation was ordered by the Deputy State Tax Officer (respondent No. 1) on June 3, 2023, in Form GST REG-19, due to non-filing of returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner sought revocation of the cancellation. The petitioner's accountant had not filed returns under the bona fide impression that there was no business activity during the relevant period. The petitioner was unable to file a revocation application on the GST portal as it was beyond the prescribed time limit. The petitioner requested the court to direct respondent No. 1 to entertain its application manually.
Held
The Court noted that the GST registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months. The Court directed that if the petitioner approaches respondent No. 1 within one week from the date of the order for submission of a physical application for revocation of cancellation, respondent No. 1 shall entertain it. Respondent No. 1 is to take a decision on the application within three weeks thereafter, in accordance with law. It was made clear that the petitioner must clear any outstanding dues and pay any fine or penalty imposed by the authority while considering the application. The Court disposed of the writ petition accordingly. The ratio decidendi is that procedural technicalities, such as portal limitations for filing, should not prevent a taxpayer from seeking redressal, provided they approach the authority promptly and are willing to comply with all statutory obligations, including clearing dues and penalties.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order of cancellation of GST registration, passed in Form GST REG-19 dated 03.06.2023 by the Deputy State Tax Officer, is void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and violative of the principles of natural justice, Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that there were no outstanding GST dues. The non-filing of returns was due to a bona fide mistake by the accountant, not intentional delay. The GST portal did not permit filing a revocation application beyond the time limit, hence the prayer for manual entertainment of the application. Respondents' arguments: The Special Government Pleader for State Tax stated they had no instructions regarding the assertion of no outstanding dues. The cancellation was solely for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months. The respondents agreed that if directed, respondent No. 1 would entertain the petitioner's application manually, as the portal did not allow late submissions, and would consider it in accordance with law.
Sections Cited
CGST Act, 2017
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER t
/ ,l TN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA Writ Petition No.3429 of 2026 Dated: 06.02.2026 Between: M/s.Uday Agro Technology Pvt.Ltd., 3-5-124/3/2,4'h floor, Attapur, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana 500 048. Rep by its Director S.Paneendra. . . Petitioner AND The Deputy State Tax Oftrcer. Rajendranagar II Circle, Saroor Nagar Division, Nampally, Hyderabad, Telangana 500 001 and another. . . . Respondents ORDER, (per lton'ble Sri .lustict I'.Sttnt Koshyl Heard Mr.P.Venkata Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Srvaroop Oorilla, leamcd Special Govemment Pleader for State Tax appearing on behalf of respondents. Perused the record.
The GSI-IN registration of the petitioner bearing No.36AABCU3|98D2ZA rvas cancelled vide impugned order {
2 passed in Form GST REG-19 dated 03.06.2023 fol non-tiling of retums for a consecutive period of six months. The Writ Petition has been filed on 04.02.2026 for revocation of the cancellation of GS'l registration of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are no outstanding GST dues left to be paid by the petitioner. [t is subrnitted that non-filing of the returns tvas lbr- the reason that its accountant had not filed retums on the bona lide iuiprcssion that the pctitioner had no business during the relcr'ant trx period and thcrc was no intentional delay. 'Ihough the petitioner has sought kr {lle an application for revocation of cancellation of (lST registration, but the GST portal does not pen-nit it as bcing bcyond thc time limit prescribed for submission. Therelore, he prays that respondent No. I may be directed to enterlarn tl're petitioner's application manually and take a decision thcreupon in accordance wirh larv
Learned Special Government Pleader fbr State Tax submits that he does not have instruction on the assertion that no 3 outstanding dues remain against the petitioner. The cancellation of GST registration was only on account of non-filing of retums for the consecutive period of six months. He submits that if the petitioner is directed to approach respondent No. l, its application can be entertained manually as the GST portal does not permit submission of application beyond the prescribed time limit. It is also submitted that respondcnt No. I would consider the application in accordance with larv
Having regard to the atbresaid fbcts and circumstances and also taking note of the lact that the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled on account of non-filing of retlrrns for the consecutive period of six months, in case the petitioner approaches respondent No.l rvithin a period of one week from today for submission of application lor revocation of cancellation of GST registration in physical fbrm, respondent No. I would entertain it and take a decision thereupon, in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks thereafter. However it is rnade clear that the petitioner shall have to clear any outstanding dues \ ? \
4 and also pay the fine or penalty that the authority may imposc while considering thc application of the petirioner.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Consequently. miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. M. JAWAHAR REDDY STANT REGISTRAR //// ECTION OFFICER To, 2 The Deputy state Tax officer, Ra.iendranagar-ll circle Saroor Nagar Division. Nampally, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 O0l The Prrncipal Sg"lulrrV to Government Revenue Department (Commercral Iaxr.Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 022 One CC to SRI P.VENKATA PRASAD, Advocate tOpUCl Two CCs to SRI SWAROOP OOR|LLA, SPEC|AL Gp FOR STATE TAX High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad . [OUT] 1wo CD Copies 3 4 5 l,\{K I]S ?nc; S I 1
HIGH COURT DATED:0610212026 ORDER T 30nAfl2 z -( HE SiA oq\ :.' .::_; !!t: ii ' -.r \\-s \ r.9Y, 'it.:l i; ,: I ifl 026 -.'.-t) WP.No.3429 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITTON WITHOUT COSTS @s',. \e-\3\)6 {S
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.