Tvl.V.Madasamy vs. The Commercial Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.V.Madasamy, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 19.05.2025, which cancelled their GST registration. The cancellation was based on grounds including not commencing business within six months of voluntary registration, intending to opt out of voluntary registration, and not conducting business from the declared place of business. This order was passed without a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 06.05.2025. The petitioner contended that they are engaged in supplying exempted goods, specifically paddy, and have been filing GSTR-3B returns accordingly. They argued that the issue was purely factual and requested the matter be remitted back to the respondent for a fresh order.

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated 19.05.2025 and remitted the case back to the respondent for passing a fresh order. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that the issue was factual and that they were engaged in supplying exempted goods while filing regular returns. The Court directed the petitioner to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice within thirty days of receiving the order. Upon receipt of the reply, the respondent was directed to pass a fresh order within thirty days thereafter, after hearing the petitioner. The Court noted that if the petitioner failed to comply with these stipulations, the respondent would be at liberty to proceed as if the writ petition was dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration under Section 29(2)(d) and Section 29(1)(c) of the CGST Act, read with Rule 21(a), is sustainable given the petitioner's submission that they are engaged in supplying exempted goods and have been filing returns. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the cancellation was based on a factual misunderstanding. They claimed to be dealing in exempted goods (paddy) and regularly filing their GSTR-3B returns, indicating business activity. They contended that the matter involved only a factual dispute and should be remanded for reconsideration. Revenue's arguments: The respondent, represented by the Special Government Pleader, took notice of the petition. No specific arguments were recorded for the respondent in the judgment.