M/S. Sira Jute World PVT. LTD vs. The State Of Telangana
Original PDF →Facts
M/s. Sira Jute World Pvt. Ltd. (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 18.06.2025 (Form GST REG-19) cancelling its GST registration, and a preceding show cause notice dated 29.05.2025 (Form GST REG-17), as well as an order dated 29.05.2025 (Form GST REG-05) rejecting its application for cancellation of registration. The petitioner also sought interim relief to restore its registration and process its application for cancellation. The respondents are the State of Telangana and GST authorities. The petitioner argued that the panchanama was not conducted in compliance with Rule 25 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, and that proper notice was not issued regarding its application for cancellation. The State Tax department contended that the petitioner failed to reply to a show cause notice regarding submission of invoices for 2024-2025, and that an inspection revealed the business was not operating from the declared place. They also raised the plea of alternative remedy.
Held
The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable at this stage. The Court reasoned that the petitioner should avail the appellate remedy provided under the law. The Court noted that issues concerning technical compliance with the Rules, as well as the merits of the cancellation order, could be duly raised and addressed by the appellate authority. Therefore, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the competent authority for revocation of cancellation of registration or to prefer an appeal. No order as to costs was made. Any pending miscellaneous applications were to stand closed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable at this stage, considering the availability of alternative remedies under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the writ petition was maintainable due to procedural irregularities, specifically the non-issuance of notice in the prescribed form for its application for cancellation of registration and the alleged non-compliance with Rule 25 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, during the panchanama of its place of business. They argued that these issues warranted interference by the writ court. Respondents' arguments: The State Tax department argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy. They pointed to Rule 23(1) of the Rules, which allows for revocation of cancellation of registration within ninety days or up to 270 days before the competent authority. Furthermore, they contended that the impugned orders were appealable under Section 107(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, where all grounds of law and fact could be raised.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Rule 23, Rule 25
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made th,r following: ORDER
TIIE HON'BLE TIIE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN 1VRIT PETITION No.31035 of 2O25 ORDER: Lcarned counsel Sri Shivender Kumar, representing learned counsel Sri T.Nagaraj, appears for the petitioner throu gh video conferencing. Sri Sw,aroop Oorilla, learned Special Governmcnt Pleader, appears lor State Tax. Sri D.Raghavendar Rao, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes ancl Customs, appears for respondent No.2. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties
The challcnge in this writ petitior-r is both to the order of rejection of application for cancellation of registration dated 29.O5.2025 and subsequent thereto, upon notice, the cancellation of the registration of the petitioner by t order dated 18.06.2025 in Form GST RtrG-19. I
l
Learned counsel for the petitioner Lras, inter alia, made nurnber of submissions which also releLte to non- issuance c,f notice in the prescribed form on the application of the p,)titioner for cancellation of rcgistration and touching t he merits of the order of cancellation as u,ell. The petitioncr also has taken a plea that ther panchanama on petitior rer's place of business was not corrducted in compliancr' of Rule 25 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rult:s. 20 17 (hereinafter referred to as. "ttre Rules") Thereforu:, interference at this stage by the writ court is llrarrantcrl
Lezrrn:d Special Government Pleader appr:aring for State Ta-x, c,n instructions, submits that the pr:titioner was issued the ;how cause notice in respect of strbnrission of irtvoices for :t particular year of 2024-2025, n hic]r it failed to reply. Lipon conduct ol inspection and panchalama being prepared, it was found that the petitionr:r is not conducting its business from the declared place of business. ( )n the other hand, he has raised th,: plea of alternative n'medy. I
) ! I
According to the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for State Tax, the petitioner can approach the proper officer u,ithin a period ol ninety days or thereafter up to 27O days before the competent authoritv AS prescribed under Rule 23(1) of the Rules for revocation o[ cancellation of registration. Otherwise also, since the impugned orders come under the definition of "orders", they are appealable under Section 107(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, u,here the petitioner is entitled to take all such grounds of law and fact.
Upon hearing learned counsel for tire parties and having considered the various grounds of challenge raised by the petitioner, we are of the view that the petitioner should avail the appellate remedy where issues concerning technical compliance of the Rules as ',r,e11 as merit can be duly raised and addressed by the appellate authority. Therefore, u,e decline to entertain the writ petition at t1'ris stage. I I
1 To,
The rn'rit petition is accordingly dispose:d rf rvith the a,foresaid liberty to the petitioner to approach the competcllt authority for revocation of canc,-.llation of registration or prefer an appeal. Hou,ever, the're r;hal1 be no Misce llaneous applications pending, if zrny, shall stand clost'i. //'
The Principal Secretary, State Commercial Taxe State Of Telangana. e:relariat, Hyderabad, The Principal Commissioner, Hyderabad G.S.T Commiss;ionerate, At 2nd Floor, GST Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500004- Sri Mallaiah Ealaraj Bandi, Deputy Sale Tax Officer, Depra(msn1 of GST, Hyderabad, Keesara N 1 Juri iction, Hyderabad. B.M. Balaraj, )eputy Sales Tax Officer, Department Of GST, Hyderabad, Keesara-1 Circle, Malkajgiri Division, Hyd erabad. One CC to SRI T.NAGARAJU, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI D RAGHAVENDAR RAO, Sr. SC FOR CBIC 'OPUCI Two CCs to SPECIAL GP FOR STATE TAX, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies OL 11t
E b.
B. BSR LS order as to costs. -.. tol- L. vTJAYA LAJ(MI ----7- ^Nf{ll:v'*-- / \,"r$scrroru oFFrcER t\
HIGH COUR T DATED: 14!1012025 ORDER WP.No.31035 of 2025 -=t: .i e ( * f, t) 10 |\lrlJ 2fr5 rlti c) - r: i-) :in.r 1'- DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS (A- 30 {.0 r-t ) ^,. L,/ o
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.