Amritha vs. The Superintendent (CGST)

Facts

The petitioner, Amritha, challenged an order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the Superintendent (CGST), Nagercoil Range, which cancelled her GST registration effective from 14.08.2025. The petitioner sought to quash this order and direct the respondent to revoke the cancellation of her GST registration bearing GSTIN/UIN 33BXTPA9755R1ZG. The matter was heard at the admission stage, with both the petitioner's counsel and the Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent consenting to dispose of the writ petition. The parties agreed that the issue was covered by a previous decision of the same High Court.

Held

The Court held that the issue was squarely covered by its previous decision in Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Center Vs. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others, batch (decided on 31.01.2022). Consequently, the impugned order dated 18.09.2025, cancelling the petitioner's GST registration, was set aside. The respondent was directed to restore the petitioner's GST registration, subject to the petitioner complying with the conditions stipulated in the Suguna Cutpiece Center judgment. These conditions include filing pending returns, paying defaulted tax along with interest, fine, and fees, and making payments in cash without utilizing Input Tax Credit (ITC) for such liabilities. The judgment also outlined conditions for the utilization of existing ITC and directed the respondent to ensure the petitioner could file returns and pay dues, with the registration to be revived forthwith upon compliance. The operative direction was to restore the registration upon fulfillment of the specified conditions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration by the respondent on 18.09.2025, effective from 14.08.2025, is valid and in accordance with law? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Center Vs. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others, batch, decided on 31.01.2022, and sought relief based on the directions issued in that case. Respondent's contention: The respondent's counsel agreed that the issue was covered by the aforementioned precedent and did not raise any counter-arguments. The respondent did not present any arguments against the petitioner's plea based on the Suguna Cutpiece Center judgment.