M/S. Sri Venkateshwara Enterprises vs. Deputy State Tax Officer

Held

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's explanation for the non-filing of returns, attributing it to a family emergency rather than intentional delay. It also noted the petitioner's inability to file a revocation application through the GST portal due to time bar. Considering these circumstances, the Court directed the petitioner to approach the competent authority (Respondent No. 1) within one week from the date of the order, in physical form, for submission of an application for revocation of the cancellation of GST registration. The competent authority was then directed to entertain this application and take a decision in accordance with the law within three weeks thereafter. The Court disposed of the writ petition with these directions.

Facts

M/s. Sri Venkateshwara Enterprises (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration certificate by the Deputy State Tax Officer (the first respondent). The cancellation order, dated 23.12.2023, was issued based on an investigation report from a higher officer, but the order itself cited non-filing of returns for six consecutive months as the ground. The petitioner had preferred a time-barred appeal against this cancellation, which was dismissed by the Appellate Joint Commissioner (the second respondent) due to the delay. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition seeking revocation of the cancellation. The petitioner's proprietor explained that the non-filing of returns was due to his father's accident and leg fracture, and not intentional delay. The GST portal did not permit filing a revocation application due to the time limit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the first respondent in cancelling the GST registration certificate of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, and in contravention of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 and the Telangana GST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that the cancellation was illegal and arbitrary, violating their fundamental right to carry on business. They contended that the non-filing of returns was unintentional due to a family emergency. They also argued that the GST portal's inability to accept a revocation application beyond the prescribed time limit necessitated judicial intervention. The respondents, represented by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted that the cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file returns for six consecutive months.