BharatTaxGST

Chethan Associates vs. The Superintendent Of Central Tax

Original PDF →
WP/30341/2025HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01058702202518 November 2025Bench: R RAGHUNANDAN RAO,T.C.D.SEKHAR6 pages
For Petitioner: SRINIVASA RAO KUDUPUDIFor Respondent: VENNA HEMANTH KUMAR(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL), GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
APHC010587022025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 30341/2025 Between: 1. CHETHAN ASSOCIATES, GSTIN - 37BMUPB1086N1ZG REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR. K. BUDDHESWAR D.N0.22425/1KA, THIRUPATHI ROAD, CHITTOOR -517001, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX, CHITTOOR-1 RANGE, CHITTOOR 2. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (CT-II) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY (FINANCE) MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110001 ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the action of the 1 Respondent in cancelling the Petitioners GST registration by order dated 28.10.2025, contrary to the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Service Tax 2 Act, 2017 and Rule 21 of the CGST Rules, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice and also invalid in the absence of DIN on the impugned order or the show cause notice, and consequently direct the authorities to revoke the cancelation of GST registration and to restore the same in the interest of justice, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASA RAO KUDUPUDI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENNA HEMANTH KUMAR(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) 2. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 3

The Court made the following ORDER: (Per Sri Justice R.Raghunandana Rao)

The petitioner was registered as a registered person, under the Goods and Services Tax (for short “GST”) region, with the 1st respondent on 26.05.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice, by the 1st respondent, calling upon the petitioner, to show cause as to why the registration of the petitioner should not be cancelled. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed his representation explaining why his registration should not be cancelled. However, the registration of the petitioner was cancelled by an order, dated 28.10.2025. 2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of cancellation, has approached this Court, by way of the present writ petition. The primary contention of the petitioner is that his objections were not considered by the 1st respondent and there is no mention of any of the objections raised by the petitioner, in the cancellation order.

3.

Sri V.Hemanth Kumar, learned Standing Counsel has obtained written instructions which are placed before us.

4.

Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Kudupudi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Hemanth Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

4

5.

A perusal of the order of cancellation, placed before this Court, by the petitioner, does not disclose any consideration of the objections raised by the petitioner. The written instructions produced by the learned Standing Counsel, state that an explanation was received from the petitioner. However, the written instructions also state that since the explanation was not comprehensive and related only to one of the issues raised in the show-cause notice, the order of cancellation had been passed.

6.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Ors. vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors1 had held that subsequent written instructions or affidavits cannot supplement the reasons set out in the impugned order and that the said order would have to stand or fall on the basis of the reasons set out in the order itself.

7.

In the present case, no such reasons can be seen nor is there any mention of the representation given by the petitioner.

8.

In the circumstances, it must be held that there is clear violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the order of cancellation, dated 25.10.2025, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 1st respondent to consider the objections raised by the petitioner and to pass orders thereafter.

1 1978 AIR SC 851 = 1978 1 SCC 405

5

9.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J

Date: 19.11.2025 KA

6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

WRIT PETITION NO: 30341/2025 Date: 19.11.2025 KA

Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.