Eiprocon International Opc Private Limited vs. Commissioner State Goods And Service Tax

Facts

The petitioner, Eiprocon International (OPC) Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 10.11.2023 that rejected its application for revocation of GST registration cancellation. The registration was initially cancelled on 31.07.2023 due to non-payment of due taxes. The rejection order cited the petitioner's failure to upload supporting documents, specifically a challan/DRC-03 for unavailable Input Tax Credit (ITC), and an insufficient amount deposited for reversed ITC. The petitioner argued that no order quantifying tax due existed. The Court, in a prior order dated 02.04.2026, had directed the revenue to clarify this aspect. In response, the Department filed a supplementary affidavit annexing an order dated 09.07.2025 passed under Section 74 of the Act, which quantified the tax liability.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's submission that the tax liability had not been quantified was incorrect, as evidenced by the order dated 09.07.2025 passed under Section 74 of the Act, which was annexed to the Department's supplementary affidavit. The Court noted that the petitioner, at this stage, stated its intention to challenge the order dated 09.07.2025 in appropriate proceedings. The petitioner also prayed for liberty to seek revocation after depositing the tax or after the challenge proceedings attain finality. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the writ petition without interfering with the impugned order, granting liberty to the petitioner to avail legal remedies as prayed. The ratio decidendi is that once a tax liability is quantified by a statutory order, the petitioner must address that quantification in their application for revocation of GST registration cancellation, and if they intend to challenge the quantification order, they should do so in separate proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for revocation of GST registration cancellation was justified, given the petitioner's contention that no tax liability had been quantified at the time of rejection? (Question of law, turning on Section 29(2) and Rule 21A of the CGST Rules, 2017). Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that the rejection order was manifestly incorrect because there was no existing order quantifying the tax due against it. This lack of quantification, the petitioner argued, rendered the reasons for rejection invalid. Revenue's argument: The revenue, through a supplementary affidavit, presented an order dated 09.07.2025 passed under Section 74 of the Act, which quantified the tax liability. This submission aimed to counter the petitioner's claim that the tax liability was unquantified, thereby justifying the rejection of the revocation application.