M/S. Vrsp Exim INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. Joint Commissioner
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. VRSP Exim India Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 04-03-2025 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Hyderabad Commissionerate (Respondent No. 1). This order rejected the petitioner's application for condonation of delay. The petitioner's GST registration had been cancelled retrospectively from 31-01-2023 by an order dated 01-10-2024 passed by the Superintendent, Ameerpet Central GST division (Respondent No. 2). The petitioner contended that the cancellation order was uploaded on the portal on 01-10-2024, and they only became aware of it when attempting to file returns. Subsequently, they filed an application for condonation of delay within the period stipulated by Rule 23 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The petitioner argued that the rejection order was sketchy and lacked reasons.
Held
The Court noted that it was not disputed that the petitioner had preferred the application for condonation of delay within the condonable period. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Court deemed it proper to set aside the order dated 04-03-2025. The Court directed Respondent No. 1 (Joint Commissioner) to treat the delay as condoned and to hear the appeal on merits, deciding it in accordance with the law. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The Writ Petition was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 04-03-2025, rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay, is arbitrary, mechanical, perverse, and without application of mind, thereby violating Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the cancellation of GST registration retrospectively from 31-01-2023, based on a rejection of the delay condonation application without proper reasoning, is bad in law and impacts the petitioner's livelihood, attracting Article 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the order rejecting the condonation of delay was cryptic and lacked reasons. They contended that their application for condonation was filed within the condonable period as per Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner emphasized that the cancellation of registration has a severe impact on their livelihood, invoking Article 21 of the Constitution, and that the respondent authority should have dealt with the application leniently. They relied on the fact that the application was preferred within the condonable period. Revenue's Arguments: The learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC formally opposed the prayer.
Sections Cited
Rule 23
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
) ! THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT (,USTICE RDNUIIA YARA WRIT PETITION No.l1193 of 2o25 ORDER: (Per tLrc Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujog Paul) Ms.K.Prabhabati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dominic Fernaldes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. With the consent finally heard.
L,earned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order, dated 04.03.2025 (Annexure P. 1), whereby the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay was rejected, is called in question in this petition. By taking this Court to the application for condonation of delay (Annexure P.6), it is submitted that order for cancellation of registration was uploaded in the portal on OL.1O.2O24. The Tax payer came to know about it only when he started filing returns. Thereafter, he frled an application for condonation of delay within the condonable period of lirnitation as per Rule 23 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The petitioner is interested to continue with his business. The ord.er for cancellation of registration has serious impact on the t livelihood of the petitioner and thereby attracts Article 2l of tine I Constitution. Since the application was preferred within
2 condonable period, respondent No.l should have de alt with it leniently. The aJrplication was rejected by a sketchy orrler without assigning arry reason as to why the application of tho petitioner did not suit the F)roper offrcer.
Learned S,:nior Standing Counsel for CBIC formally opposed the prayer.
Since it is not in dispute that the petitioner pr,:ferred the application for <:ondonation of delay within condonabk period, in the peculiar far:ts and circumstances of the case, v re deem it proper to set aside the order dated 04.03.2025 and direct the respondent No. [ -authority to treat the delay as con loned and hear the appeal cn merits and decide it in accordance with law
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, without expressing any ,rpinion on the merits. There shall be r,o order as to costs Interlocutcry applications, if any pend sha11 sti Lnd closed. A. SRINIVASA REDOY //II ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \"J To, ul SECT|ON OFFICER I / t . rne Joint conrmissioner, Hyderabad commissionerate, GS f Bhavan, 7th I I floor, Basheer flagh, Hyderabad 2' The Superinterrdent, Ameerpet centrar GST division punjagutta Range, Srinagar Coton,r, Hyderabad.
The Secretary, I\4inistry ot- fi1gn99, !! Ftoor, Jeevan Deep Brritding, Sansad Marg, New Dellri, Union of lndia-1 10001 . . One CC to Ms. (.pRABHABAT|, Advocate [OPUC] . One CC to SRt DOMINTC FERNANDES, Sr. SCrOn CB|C [OF,UC] . ONE CC tO SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, OCFUii SOT-rCII.R GENERIAL OF lND|A, High Oourt for the State of fetanjana ai HyoerabaO .OpUCl . Two CD Cooies ** 4 5 6 BS L 7 R I i I l I I I I I l
HIGH COURT DATED:21 10412025 ORDER WP.No.11193 of 2025 ./:' <; 'a) oF TE s + t: .\ tNC $. i; -- \,\...: <,: . (r DISPOSING C'F THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS eq lLtlld
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.