M/S.Kolipakas Automobiles And Engineering Works vs. Deputy State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Kolipakas Automobiles & Engineering Works, had its GST registration cancelled by the Deputy State Tax Officer on August 8, 2023, for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months. This followed the rejection of its voluntary application for cancellation of registration on August 12, 2021. The petitioner attributed the non-filing to ignorance and business closure. Subsequently, tax liability was imposed via proceedings under Section 73 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, with an order dated September 28, 2024. The petitioner challenged both the cancellation order and the Section 73 order in this writ petition. However, during submissions, the petitioner withdrew the challenge to the Section 73 order, seeking liberty to pursue it in separate proceedings.
Held
The Court allowed the petitioner liberty to seek revocation of the cancellation of its GST registration. While acknowledging that the period prescribed under Rule 23 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, for seeking revocation had expired, the Court, in the given facts and circumstances, decided to grant the petitioner an opportunity to apply for revocation. This was based on the petitioner's intention to resume business and the fact that the cancellation stemmed from non-filing of returns after its voluntary cancellation application was rejected. The Court directed that if the petitioner files such an application within two weeks before the competent authority, it should be considered in accordance with law, subject to the payment of any outstanding dues. The challenge to the Section 73 order was not pressed and liberty was granted to pursue it separately. The issue regarding the unsigned and unverified orders was not decided as the challenge to the Section 73 order was withdrawn.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to seek revocation of the cancellation of its GST registration, considering the expiry of the prescribed period under Rule 23 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017? The petitioner argued that it should be allowed to seek revocation as it intends to resume business, and the cancellation was due to non-filing of returns after its voluntary cancellation application was rejected. The Revenue contended that the period prescribed under Rule 23 had expired but stated the Court could pass an order deemed fit. The petitioner also initially challenged the Section 73 order and the cancellation order on grounds of being unsigned and not digitally verified as per Rule 26(3) of CGST Rules, 2017, but this challenge was not pressed for the Section 73 order.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Rule 23, Rule 26(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court madle the following: ORDER
AT HYDERABAI) ANI) I Dated:22.01.2026 Between: IWs. Kolipakas Automobiles & Engineering Works Deputy State Tax Officer, Mancherial District, Adilabad, Telangana State, And 4 others. Petitioner and Respondents ORDER: Learned counser sri T.N.Reddy appears for the petitioner. Sri swaroop oorila, learned speciar Government preader for State Ta><, appears for respondents No.l to 4. 2. The petitioner's registration was canceiled for non_filing of returns for a continuous period of six months vide order dated 08.08.2023. Earlier its application for cancellation of registration on voluntary basis was rejected vide order dated 12.0g.2021. However, in I ! : I i I t \
2 rgnorance and because of closure of business, it did not file the returns consecutively for six months, which led to cancelration of its registrati,n. The petitioner has thereafter arso been irnposed tax liability vide proceedings under section 73 of the Terangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, vide order-in_original dated, 2g.0g.2024. Both these orders an: challenged in the present writ petition.
However, during the course of submissions,. Ieamed counsel for the petitioner does not press the challenge to the order_in_original in the same petition and sought liberty to assail it in independent proceedings. Liberty, as prayed for, is allowed.
Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be allowed liberty to seek revocation of the cancellation of registration by moving an application before the competent authority in accordance with law.
Learned speciar Govemment pleader for state Tax submits that the period prescribed under Rule 23 of the Telangana Goods and Services'fax Rules,2017, has long expired for seeking such revocation by the highest competent authority. However, this coun may pass an order as nray be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of I I the case.
3 I
Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since the cancellation of registration has occurred on account of non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months after the petitioner's voluntary application for cancellation of registration was rejected on 12.08.2021, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner may be allowed an opportunity to seek revocation of cancellation of registration as it intends to conduct its business again. tf the petitioner makes such an application within a period of two weeks before the competent authority, it may be considered in accordance with law subject to payment of outstanding dues, if any. 7 The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. -ST'7TT:ffi1NiVASE REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR i I I € ,//' SECTION OFFICER To, 1. 2. 3
The Union 6. 7. gf India, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Delhi-11000i the 8. Finance, At North New OF a F HIGH COURT DATED:2210112026 lHE S o() 28 r[8 20]i; * m t WP.No.1755 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION OUT COSTS lr --l n a) {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.