Olympus Metal Private Limited vs. Sales Stax Officer Class Ii/Avato Ward 84, Delhi & Anr.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Olympus Metal Private Limited, sought cancellation of its GST registration (GSTIN 07AABCO9787A1Z9) effective from 31.12.2019, stating business closure. Respondent No. 1 issued a notice on 04.02.2020, requesting a stock statement and month-wise supply details, to which the petitioner did not respond. Subsequently, on 21.02.2020, Respondent No. 1 rejected the cancellation application. A further notice was issued on 15.09.2020, proposing cancellation for issuing invoices without supply. The impugned order dated 25.09.2020 cancelled the petitioner's registration retrospectively from 01.07.2017. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this order and praying for restoration of GSTIN, if cancelled, without retrospective effect.
Held
The Court directed that the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration would take effect from 11.01.2020. This decision was based on the submission by the learned Counsel for the respondent, who stated there was no objection to cancelling the registration from the date prayed for by the petitioner. The Court clarified that this order would not prevent the respondents from initiating proceedings for the recovery of any tax, interest, or penalty that might be due from the petitioner, in accordance with the law. The issue of whether the initial cancellation order with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017 was arbitrary was rendered moot by the consent of the parties to a prospective cancellation date.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GSTIN by Respondent No. 1, with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017, was arbitrary and liable to be quashed, considering the petitioner had applied for cancellation due to business closure? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the cancellation of its GSTIN with retrospective effect was arbitrary. It had applied for cancellation due to business closure, and while the application was rejected, the subsequent cancellation order by Respondent No. 1 had an unduly retrospective effect. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, submitted that it had no objection if the petitioner's GSTIN registration was directed to be cancelled with effect from 11.01.2020, as prayed for by the petitioner.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2023
The matter is taken up today as 09.03.2023 was declared a holiday. CM APPL. 8110/2023 (for exemption)
Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under: (i) To issue appropriate writ/direction/order quashing the Impugned Order dated 25 September 2020 passed by the Respondent No. 1 wherein GSTIN of the Petitioner has been arbitrarily cancelled by the Respondent No. 1. (ii) To issue appropriate writ/direction/order directing the Respondents not to cancel the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/06/2026 at 13:19:33 registration of the Petitioner with a retrospective effect; (iii) As the Petitioner's revocation application has been pending the Petitioner herein prays before this Hon'ble Court issue appropriate writ/direction/order to the Respondent No. 1 to restore the GSTIN of the Petitioner and if need be cancelled from 11 January 2020 and without having any retrospective effect. (iv) To grant such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.
The petitioner had filed an application seeking cancellation of his GST registration (GSTIN 07AABCO9787A1Z9) with effect from 31.12.2019. 6. In response to the petitioner’s application for cancellation of his registration, Respondent No. 1 issued a Notice dated 04.02.2020, calling upon the petitioner to submit a stock statement along with month-wise, inward/ outward supplies. Apparently, the petitioner did not respond to the said Notice.
On 21.02.2020, Respondent No. 1 passed an order, which reads as under: “Order of Rejection of Application for Cancellation This has reference to your reply filed vide ARN AA0701200230073 dated 11/01/2020. The reply has been examined and the same has not been found to be satisfactory for the following reasons: Therefore, your application is rejected in accordance with the provisions of the Act.”
Subsequently, on 15.09.2020, Respondent No. 1 issued another notice, proposing to cancel the petitioner’s registration for the following reasons: This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/06/2026 at 13:19:33 “1 Issues any invoice or bill without supply of goods and/or services in violation of the provisions of this Act, or the rules made thereunder leading to wrongful availment or utilization of input tax credit or refund of tax.”
Thereafter, the respondents passed the impugned dated 25.09.2020, cancelling the petitioner’s registration with effect from 01.07.2017. 10. There is no cavil that the petitioner’s registration is required to be cancelled. The petitioner had applied for the same, stating its reason for seeking cancellation as – “discontinued its business/ closure of business”.
Although Respondent No. 1 had rejected the said application; it had proceeded to cancel the petitioner’s registration, albeit with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017. 12. After some arguments, Mr. Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that he has no objection if the petitioner’s GSTIN registration is directed to be cancelled with effect from 11.01.2020 as prayed for by the petitioner.
In view of the above, it is directed that the cancellation of the petitioner’s registration will take effect from 11.01.2020. It is further clarified that this order will not preclude the respondents from initiating any proceedings for recovery of any tax, interest or penalty as may be otherwise due from the petitioner, in accordance with law.
The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. VIBHU BAKHRU, J AMIT MAHAJAN, J MARCH 10, 2023/“SS” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/06/2026 at 13:19:33
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.