M/S Shafiya Agencies vs. Superintendent Of Central Tax

Facts

M/s Shafiya Agencies (the petitioner) filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The cancellation order was issued by the Superintendent of Central Tax, Anantapur-2 GST Range (the respondent). The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to set aside the show-cause notice for cancellation and the subsequent order of cancellation. The petitioner also filed an interim application seeking suspension of the cancellation order. The Court noted that a similar case, W.P. No. 18308 of 2024, was disposed of by the High Court on 16.10.2024 with specific directions. Following that precedent, the present Writ Petition was disposed of with similar directions.

Held

The Court disposed of the Writ Petition by following the directions issued in a previous similar case, W.P. No. 18308 of 2024. The petitioner was directed to file an application for revocation of the cancelled registration on or before 27.08.2025. Concurrently, the petitioner was to file draft returns it intended to file if registration were restored and deposit all taxes due by the same date. The respondent, as the Registering Authority, was to receive the tax payment before considering the revocation application. The respondent was then mandated to consider the petitioner's revocation application and pass orders within 15 days of its receipt. If the respondent accepted the petitioner's plea, the registration would be restored, and the petitioner would be required to file all pending returns. The Court also provided a procedural safeguard, allowing for manual filing of the revocation application if online filing presented difficulties, with the respondent obligated to accept such manual submissions. No costs were awarded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration by the respondent is sustainable in law, considering the petitioner's challenge and the precedent set in W.P. No. 18308 of 2024? The petitioner argued that the cancellation of its GST registration was erroneous and sought its setting aside. The petitioner relied on the previous judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 18308 of 2024, which dealt with a similar situation and provided a path for resolution. The respondents, represented by the Superintendent of Central Tax and the State of Andhra Pradesh, did not appear to have made specific arguments recorded in the judgment, but the Court proceeded to pass orders based on the petitioner's plea and the established precedent. The Court's decision was guided by the need to provide a procedural remedy to the petitioner in line with its prior ruling.