M/S. Sri Venkateswara Chemicals vs. The Superintendent

WP/15958/2025HC TelanganaGSTCNR HBHC01029318202522 September 2025Bench: APARESH KUMAR SINGH,G.M. MOHIUDDIN5 pages

For Petitioner: SRl. G NARENDRA CHEFor Respondent: SPECIAL GOVT PLEADER FOR STATE TAX

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sri Venkateswara Chemical, represented by its Proprietrix, Smt. Mounika, filed a writ petition challenging the Order of Cancellation of Registration dated July 3, 2024, issued by the Superintendent, Assistant Commissioner, Shamshabad GST Division. The cancellation was based on a show cause notice dated June 15, 2023. The petitioner sought to declare the cancellation order illegal and sought restoration of its GST registration. The respondents, including the Superintendent, the State of Telangana, the Union of India, and the Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax, Hyderabad, filed a counter-affidavit. The petitioner had not yet approached the competent authority for revocation of the cancellation under Rule 23 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of the cancellation order itself. Instead, it acknowledged that the petitioner had not yet approached the competent authority for revocation of the cancellation of its registration as provided under Rule 23 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Hyderabad (Respondent No.4), or the competent authority for revocation of the cancellation within two weeks. The Court directed that if such an application is made within the stipulated period, the competent authority shall consider it on its own merits. The petitioner was also granted liberty to raise all grounds and facts in its application for revocation. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Order of Cancellation of Registration dated July 3, 2024, passed by the First Respondent is contrary to law, violative of the principles of natural justice, invalid, arbitrary, and unsustainable, thereby warranting its setting aside and restoration of the petitioner's GST registration? The petitioner argued that the order was illegal and unsustainable. The respondents' primary contention, as noted by the court, was that the petitioner had not availed the remedy of approaching the competent authority for revocation of cancellation under Rule 23 of the Rules. The petitioner, in response, sought liberty to approach the competent authority for revocation.

Sections Cited

Rule 22(3), Rule 23

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

\ [ 3488 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE TWENry SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION NO: 15958 OF 2025 Between M/s. Sri Venkateswara Chemical Plot No. 14, [\Ianikonda Gardens Rep. by its Proprietrix, Smt. Putta s, Krishna Tulasi Residency, Flat No. 301, Colony, Manikonda, Hyderabad, Telangana Mounika. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent, o/o The Assistant Commissioner, Shamshabad GST Division, VIP Hills, Jai Hind Enclave, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500081 The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue (CT) Department, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, Telangana. The Union of lndia, rep. by the rep. by its Secretary (Finance), Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001. Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Hyderabad . (Respondent No.4 is impleaded as per C.O. dated 22.09:2025 in W.P.No. 15958 of2025l ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring that the impugned Order of Cancellation of Registration vide Reference No. 243607240064281, dated 03-07-2024, passed by the First Respondent, is contrary to law, violative of the principles of natural justice, invalid, non-est, deemed to have never been issued, not an order in the eye of law, arbitrary, capricious, unjust, unsustainable and illegal and consequently set aside the same and direct the Respondents to restore the Registration Certificate of the Petitioner 2 3 4 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner to carry on its business by suspending the impugned "Order of Cancellation of Registration" vide Reference No. 2436 O7240064281, dated 03-07-2024, passed by the First Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. G NARENDRA CHE Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SPECIAL GOVT PLEADER FOR STATE TAX Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2&4: SRI M. SRIKANTH REDDY (sENroR sc FoR cBrc) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

The Court made the following: ORDER

I r*' \ NNII] Writ Petition No. 15958 of 2O25 ORDER: Heard Mr.G.Narendra Chetty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Srikanth Reddy, learned. Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, appears for respondents No.1 and 3. 2. Petitioner's GST registration has been cancelled after issuance of a show cause notice dated 15.06.2023 by order dated O3.O7.2024 issued in Form GST REG-19 in terms of Rule 22(31 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2Ol7 (for short, the Rules') impugned herein.

A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents No.l and 3. However, it appears that the petitioner has not approached the competent authority in terms of Rule 23 of the Rules for revocation of cancellation of its registration.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if liberty is grantecl, the petitioner may approach the Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, L

2 Hyderabad/competent authority/respondent No.4 for revocation of its cancellation of registration.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are inclined to allow liberty to the petitioner to approach the Principal commissioner, central Goods and. services Tax, Hyderabad/competent authority for revocation of its cancellation of registration within a period of two (o2) weeks. In case such an apprication is made within two weeks, respondent No.4/competent authority would consider the bame on its own merits. Neeclless to s&y, petitioner is at liberty to raise all grounds and facts in its application for revocation.

Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shafl stand closed. //// ---- C. DEEPIKA / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I 6 SECTION OFFICER To, 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. $, The superintendent, o/o The Assistant commissioner, shamshabad GST plvjgign, VIP Hills, Jai Hind Enclave, Madhapur, Hyclerabad; Telangana - 500081. The Princip.al Secretary to the Government, Revenue (CT) Department, Dr. B. R. Ambed kar Tela ngana Secretariat Build ing, Hyderab,bd, Telahgana. fh9 pe91etgry(Finance)Union of lndia, trlinistry of Fanance, NorthEbck, New Delhi - 1 10001. One CC to SRl. G. NARENDRA CHETTy, Advocate [OpUC] Two ccs to SPECIAL GP FoR srATE TAX, High couri for the state of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] one cc to sRl. M SRIKANTH REDDY (sENtoR sc FoR cBrc) topucl One CC to DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF tNDtA [OPUC] Two CD Copies BM GJP

f /6 HIGH GOURT DATED:,2210U2025 ORDER WP.No.15958 of 2025 1., 'ra ..;:} + LLt 0$ m ,i { DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \v

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.