Venkata Narayana Madupalli vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer

Held

The Court noted that the GST registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months and that there were no outstanding dues against the petitioner. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission regarding the difficulty in filing the revocation application due to portal limitations. The Court directed that if the petitioner approaches the Deputy State Tax Officer (Respondent No. 1) within one week from the date of the order with a physical application for revocation of the cancellation of GST registration, the said officer shall entertain the application and take a decision in accordance with law within three weeks thereafter. The Court disposed of the writ petition accordingly, with no order as to costs.

Facts

The petitioner, Venkata Narayana Madupalli, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 03-10-2024 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer (Respondent No. 1) cancelling his GST registration (GSTIN/UIN No. 36ATFPM7374K2Z3). The cancellation was due to non-filing of returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner contended that there were no outstanding GST dues and the non-filing was due to miscommunication with his Chartered Accountant. He sought to restore his registration, but the GST portal did not permit his application for revocation due to being beyond the prescribed time limit. He requested the Court to direct the respondent to entertain his application manually.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration by the Deputy State Tax Officer, vide order dated 03-10-2024, is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and in violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly concerning the petitioner's inability to file a revocation application due to portal limitations? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under GST law). Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that there were no outstanding GST dues and the non-filing of returns was unintentional, caused by miscommunication with the Chartered Accountant. The inability to file a revocation application due to portal time limits prevented him from seeking redressal. Relied on the principle of natural justice to seek an opportunity to be heard or to have his application considered. Respondents (State Tax): Did not dispute that there were no outstanding dues. Acknowledged that the cancellation was solely for non-filing of returns. Submitted that if directed, the petitioner's application could be entertained manually by the Deputy State Tax Officer, as the GST portal had time limitations.