M/S. Sri Poojitha Plastics vs. Deputy State Tax Officer

Held

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's situation where the GST registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months. The Court noted the petitioner's submission that there were no outstanding dues and that the non-filing was due to reliance on an accountant and lack of awareness, not intentional delay. The Court also considered that the GST portal did not allow for a manual application for revocation due to time limitations. Given these circumstances, the Court directed that if the petitioner approaches the competent authority within one week from the date of the order for submission of an application for revocation of cancellation in physical form, the authority would entertain it. The competent authority was then directed to take a decision on the application in accordance with the law within three weeks thereafter. The writ petition was disposed of on these terms.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sri Poojitha Plastics, had its GST registration certificate (GST No.36AJNPK82O7HIZZ) cancelled by the Deputy State Tax Officer (1st Respondent) on November 2, 2022, for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner filed a time-barred appeal against this order, which was dismissed by the Appellate Joint Commissioner (FAC) (2nd Respondent) on November 14, 2025, due to the delay. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking revocation of the cancellation. The petitioner claimed no outstanding GST dues and attributed the non-filing of returns to reliance on an accountant and unawareness of the show cause notice, asserting no intentional delay. The GST portal did not permit filing an application for revocation due to being beyond the prescribed time limit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the 1st Respondent in cancelling the GST registration certificate of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law, particularly Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 and the Telangana GST Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the cancellation was illegal and arbitrary, violating their fundamental right to carry on business. They argued that there were no outstanding GST dues and the non-filing of returns was unintentional, due to reliance on an accountant and lack of awareness of notices. The petitioner also stated that the GST portal did not allow them to file a revocation application manually due to time limitations. Respondents' arguments: The Special Government Pleader for State Tax stated they had no instructions regarding the petitioner's assertion of no outstanding dues. However, they acknowledged that the cancellation was due to non-filing of returns for six consecutive months.