M/S. Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Vandemataram Projects Private Limited, a construction company operating in Raipur since 2017, had its GST registration cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Circle-3, Raipur, via an order dated February 17, 2025. This cancellation followed a show-cause notice issued on February 5, 2025, under Rule 21(a) of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, to which the petitioner did not file a reply. The petitioner subsequently filed an application for revocation of the cancellation on May 23, 2025, and a reminder on June 26, 2025, neither of which had been decided by the respondent authorities. The petitioner sought quashing of the cancellation order and restoration of its GST registration.

Held

The Court noted that Section 30 read with Rule 23 of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, provides for the revocation of an order of cancellation of registration. However, it was observed that the petitioner had not filed the application in the proper format. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court disposed of the petition. It granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application in the prescribed format, specifically Form GST REG-21, along with an application for condonation of delay, within 15 days from the date of the order. The respondent authorities were directed to consider and decide this fresh application within 30 days of its filing. Crucially, the Court directed that the application filed in the prescribed format would be treated as if it was filed on the original date of filing, May 23, 2025. The ratio decidendi is that procedural defects in filing revocation applications should be allowed to be rectified when the substantive right to seek revocation exists, provided the application is filed within a reasonable time and with a condonation of delay. The operative direction was to allow the petitioner to refile the application and for the authorities to decide it.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's application for revocation of GST registration cancellation, filed on May 23, 2025, and followed by a reminder on June 26, 2025, was in the prescribed format and whether it was considered by the respondent authorities? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that it had filed an application for revocation of the cancellation order and a reminder, but these had not been decided. They expressed readiness to file a fresh application in the proper format along with a condonation of delay application. Revenue/State's Argument: The respondent State counsel argued that the petitioner had not filed the application for revocation in the prescribed format (Form GST REG-21) and had also failed to file an application for condonation of delay. They stated that if the petitioner filed the application in the prescribed format with a delay condonation application, the authorities would decide it according to law.