M/S Deep Infotech vs. Deputy State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
M/s Deep Infotech, the petitioner, challenged a show-cause notice-cum-order for cancellation of registration (Form GST REG-17 dated 18-06-2025) and the subsequent order of cancellation of registration (Form GST REG-19 dated 01-07-2025), both issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer, Rajendranagar. The petitioner argued that the show-cause notice for cancellation under Rule 22(1) of the GST Rules, 2017, was issued based on grounds that should have led to suspension under Rule 21A, not cancellation. The cancellation was made effective from 27.02.2025, a date prior to the show-cause notice. The petitioner also noted that the time limit for revocation of cancellation had expired.
Held
The High Court disposed of the writ petition without entering into the merits of the case. The Court noted the petitioner's submission that the time limit for revocation of cancellation under Rule 23 of the Rules had expired. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority, specifically the Joint Commissioner, State Tax, for revocation of its cancelled registration. If such an application were made within two weeks, the competent authority was directed to decide upon it within three weeks thereafter. The Court did not delve into the procedural correctness of the show-cause notice or the cancellation order, nor did it address the petitioner's arguments regarding the applicability of Rule 21A versus Rule 22, or the retrospective effect of the cancellation. The operative direction was to allow the petitioner to seek revocation.
Key Issues
1. Whether the show-cause notice for cancellation of registration issued under Rule 22(1) of the GST Rules, 2017, was procedurally flawed by not adhering to the provisions for suspension of registration under Rule 21A, specifically Sub-Rule (2A)? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that the grounds for cancellation, such as the business not being conducted from the declared place, should have been addressed through suspension under Rule 21A, which allows for suspension via an intimation in Form GST REG-31. They argued that Rule 22(1) does not provide for suspension of registration. Revenue's argument: The Revenue contended that the grounds for the show-cause notice (business not conducted from the declared place of business/place of business not found) were in violation of Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017, and therefore, the proper officer had the jurisdiction to place the registration under suspension pending the outcome of the proceedings. They also relied on Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 22, which permits cancellation from a date determined by the officer after considering the reply to the show-cause notice.
Sections Cited
Section 29, Rule 21A, Rule 22, Rule 23
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Gourt made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No.23121 of 2025 oRDER: Mr. Goondla Venkateswarlu, learned counsel lor the petitioner. Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax appears for the respondents.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Show cause notice for cancellation of registration dated 18.06.2O25 issued under Rule 22(1) of the Central Goods and Services Ta-x Rules, 2O17 (hereinafter reierred to:rs 'the Rules') in FORM GST REG-17 led to cancellation ol the registration of the petitioner by the Deputy State Tax Officer, Rajendranagar uide impugned order dated 01.07.202.5 r,r.ith effect from 27.O2.2025. 4. Learned counsei for the petitioner submits that the provision for suspension of registration is Rule 21A of the GST Ruies whereas the show cause notice for cancellation of :
-l: l registration under Rule 22 of th,e Rules does not provide for suspension of registration. He has referred to Sub-Rule (2A) of Rule 21A which provides for certain conditions to be fulfilled in cases where the proper officer on reasons to believe can suspend the registratlon of the petitior-rer by way of an intimation in F-ORM GST REG-3 1. 5. Learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax submits that the ingredients of Sub-Rule (2A) of Rule 21A are not appiicable to the case of the petitioner as per the grounds taken in the show cause notice i-e., the person does not conduct an1' business frorn declared place of business/place of business not found. It is in violation of the provisions of Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax- Act' 2077 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Therefore, the proper officer issuing the show cause notice had the juri iction to place the registration under suspension pending the outcome of the proceedings. 6. l,e:irned counsel lor the petitioner then submits I I that the cancellation of registration from a date anterior to the approach the next higher authority, who is the Joint
Learned Special Government pieader for State Tax has referred to Sub-Rule (3) ol Ruie 22 of the Rules which provides that the proper officer may, upon consideration of the reply to the show cause notice in FORM RtrG-18 by the tax payer, cancel the registration with effect from the date to be determined by him and notify the taxable person directing him to pay arrears of any tax, interest or penalty including the a-rnount liable to be paid under Sub-section (5) of Section 29 of the Act. Therefore, this cancellation could be made from a date anterior to the show cause notice, if the proper officer is satisfied that such grounds are made out after consideration of the reply, if any, furnished by the assessee. B. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the time limit of 9O days for revocation of cancellation of registration in terms of Rule 23 ol the Ruies is over. \
Learned Special Government pleader for State Ta_x submits that in that event, the petitioner is at liberty to show cause notice i.e., with effect from 27.02.2025 is not permissible.
.-:a. Commissioner, with such an application as is provided under the proviso to Rule 23(L) of the Rules.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to raise other grounds of merits of the order, which we are not inclined to go into in writ juri iction. 1 1. Therefore, the Writ petition is disposed of without entering into the merits of the case of the parties with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority under the Act and the Rules for revocation of its cancellation of registration. [f such an application is made within a period of two weeks, the competent authority/the Joint Commissioner, State Tax, shall take a decision thereupon within a period of three weeks thereafter. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous appiications pending, if any, sha1l stand closed A.JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR & //// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 fi fi{ilf',,!l,ls:,"xf :*'t1"il3i31ffi ";"'1"''liBfl :"':Jl'iffi?x'}:n'*"" Secretary to Government of Telangana' Government of Telangana' Revenue ?:B?tH?t r"' fi '!in|"* ni -s""'eta iiat B u i I d ins s s a ira bad' H vd e ra bad' One CC to SRl. GOONDLA VENKATESWARLU Advocate tOPUCI 2 3
One CC to SRI SWA loPUCl 'ROOP ooRlLLA special G nns. f-*lo%? cooiu, - vvr \rr-Li1 opecral uovt Pleader for state Tax TKS I I j &
.i rr6 i.i-..r | _' HIGH COURT DATED:21 10812025 ORDER WP.No.23121 of 2025 DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1l1E 5In /.+ ( o t) 28 0[T mn +
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.