Janki Devi vs. Commissioner Goods And Services Tax State GST

Facts

The petitioner, Janki Devi, had her GST registration cancelled on October 10, 2024, due to non-filing of returns. She applied for revocation, but her application was rejected on June 16, 2025, after a show cause notice dated March 24, 2025, indicated that annual returns for 2022-23 and 2023-24, along with CMP-08, were not filed. The petitioner contended in a supplementary affidavit that she has since filed these pending returns and annexed copies. She requested the court to direct the respondent-Department to reconsider her application in light of the filed returns.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's prayer for reconsideration of her application for revocation of GST registration cancellation should be allowed, given that she has now filed the pending annual returns for the financial years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The Court noted that the Department did not oppose this prayer. The reasoning was that the deficiency cited in the show cause notice had been rectified by the petitioner. The operative direction was to permit the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Department, accompanied by proof of filing the returns for the period specified in the show cause notice. The proper officer is then mandated to take an appropriate decision on this representation within three weeks. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's application for revocation of GST registration cancellation should be reconsidered, given that the pending returns identified in the show cause notice have now been filed? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation and application of GST provisions related to return filing and revocation of cancellation). Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that the sole reason for the rejection of her revocation application was the non-filing of annual returns for the financial years 2022-23 and 2023-24. She submitted that these returns have now been filed, thereby rectifying the deficiency. Therefore, the Department should be directed to revisit the matter considering this compliance. Revenue/State's argument: The respondent-Department, represented by Ms. Puja Banga, fairly did not oppose the petitioner's prayer for reconsideration.