Ms R B Enterprises vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax

Facts

The petitioner, M/s R B Enterprises, challenged the rejection of its GST registration revocation application dated 20.08.2025, the original cancellation order dated 30.06.2025 by respondent no. 3, and the Order-in-Appeal dated 16.02.2026 by respondent no. 2. The GST registration was initially cancelled for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months. The revocation application was rejected on different grounds: a discrepancy between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A. The petitioner sought a direction to consider its representation for revocation, offering to furnish all defaulted returns along with applicable dues, penalty, and interest. The appeal against the cancellation order was dismissed by the Appellate Authority not on merits, but solely on the ground of limitation.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner should be granted liberty to apply for revocation afresh. The reasoning was that the order of the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal was not on merits but solely on the ground of limitation. Furthermore, the revocation application had been rejected on new grounds, distinct from the initial reason for cancellation (non-filing of returns). The Court found merit in the petitioner's willingness to deposit the entire tax amount, along with interest and penalty. Accordingly, the Court directed that if the petitioner furnishes all returns, deposits the entire amount of tax, along with penalty and interest within two weeks from the date of the order, and makes a fresh representation, the same shall be considered and decided by the Proper Officer within four weeks from the date of filing of the representation. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to file a fresh application for revocation of GST registration, given the circumstances. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that its primary prayer was for a direction to consider its representation for revocation of GST registration. It expressed willingness to furnish all defaulted returns, deposit applicable taxes, interest, and penalty. The petitioner highlighted that the revocation application was rejected on grounds different from the initial cancellation order, and the appeal was dismissed on limitation, not merits. Revenue's argument: The Revenue argued that the prayer might not be admissible as the petitioner's appeal against the orders of respondent no. 3 had been dismissed by order dated 16.02.2026, and this order was also under challenge in the present writ petition.