M/S. Vincatis Technologies Private Limited vs. Deputy State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
M/s. Vincatis Technologies Private Limited (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration by the Deputy State Tax Officer (1st Respondent) on February 24, 2023. The cancellation was initiated suo motu due to the non-filing of GST returns for six consecutive months. The Petitioner contended that the non-filing was due to a bona fide belief of no business activity and an issue with their accountant. They also stated that the GST portal did not permit filing a revocation application beyond the prescribed time limit. The Petitioner sought a direction to the respondent to manually entertain their revocation application. The respondents did not dispute the absence of outstanding dues.
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. Considering these facts, the Court directed that if the Petitioner approaches the 1st Respondent (Deputy State Tax Officer) within one week from the date of the order for submission of an application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration in physical form, the 1st Respondent shall entertain it. The 1st Respondent is to take a decision on the application in accordance with the law within three weeks thereafter. The Court disposed of the writ petition with no order as to costs. No specific issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of the Petitioner's GST registration by the 1st Respondent, the Deputy State Tax Officer, vide order dated 24.02.2023, for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months, is illegal, arbitrary, and in contravention of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and Section 37(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 and the Telangana GST Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner argued that the cancellation was illegal and arbitrary, violating their fundamental right to carry on business. They claimed the non-filing was unintentional, due to a misunderstanding by their accountant. They also highlighted the technical difficulty in filing a revocation application beyond the stipulated time on the GST portal. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, represented by the Special Government Pleader for State Tax, did not dispute that there were no outstanding dues against the Petitioner. They submitted that if directed, they would entertain the Petitioner's application manually, as the GST portal had time limitations.
Sections Cited
Section 37(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following ORDER
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KIIMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G,M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No.29665 of 2o25 ORDER: Mr. K.P.Amarnath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K. Sai Akarsh, learned counsel representing Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, appears for the respondents.
The GST registration of the petitioner bearing No.36AAFCVO52Btr1ZR was cancelled uide impugned order passed in Form GST REG-19 dated 24.O2.2O23 for non-filing of returns for a consecutive period of six months. The Writ Petition has been filed on 22.09 .2025 for revocation of the canceliation of GST registration of the petit.ioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are no outstalding GST dues left to be paid by the petitioner. It is submitted that non-filing of the returns was for the reason that its accountant had not filed returns on the bona ftde impression that the petitioner had no business during the relevalt tax \ \
l period stzrrting from September, 2O2O and there u,as no intentional c elay. Though the petitioner has sought to file an application {or revocation of cancellation ol GST registration, but the GiiT porta-l does not permit it as being beyond the time limit prescribed for submission. Therefore, he prays that respondent lrlo.1 may be directed to entertain the petitioner,s applicatior:L manually and tal<e a decision thereupon in accordance r.r.ith law.
Learnecl counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that no outstanding dues remain as agairrs I the petitioner. The cancellar,ion of GST registration u,as onll on account of non-filing of returns for the consecutive period of six months. He submits that if the petitioncr is directer,l to approach respondent No.1-Deputy State Tax Officer, Vidvanagar Circle, Secunderabarl Division, its application can be entertained manually as the GST portal does not permit submission of application treyond the prescribed time lim it. It is also submitted thzLt respondent No.l u.ould consider the application in a<'cordance with law.
J
Having regard to the aforesaid facts ard circumstances and also taking note of the fact that the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled on account of non filing of returns for the consecutive period of six months and that there are no outstanding dues against the petitioner, in case if the petitioner approaches respondent No. 1 *.ithin a period of one week from today for submission of application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration in physical form, respondent No. 1 would entertain it and take a decision thereupon, 1n accordance with law, within a period of three weeks thereafter.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGI //// \ SECTION OFFICER To 1 2 The Deputy State Tax Officer, O/o. Assistant Commiss Vidyanagar Circle, Secunderabad Drvision, Telanganal The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Commercial T ner (State Taxes), axes Department, 4 Nampally, Hyderabad. ir'" S""i"triv to Government (Revenue), State Tax Department' Secretariat' State of Telangana at HYderabad. On" CC to SRi K.P.ANIARNATH REDDY, Advocate tolrUCl o;; ac io Sni swnnooP ooRlLLA, SPECIAL Gow PLEADER FoR STATE TAX, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies 6 SA BS g l
C.C I'ODAY HIGH COURT DATED:241'1O12025 ORDER WP.No.29665 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W'P WITHOUT COSTS. :"IAIE 'F 1$" $$s o r-i I 6) :> :- .a' * CJ tr q D t
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.