M/S.Srinivasa Civil Works (P) Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Srinivasa Civil Works (P) Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the order of cancellation of its GST registration dated 18.04.2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner ST (Respondent No. 1). The petitioner contended that due to unavoidable circumstances, it failed to file monthly returns under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and now wishes to revive its business. The petitioner argued that it was not afforded a proper opportunity before the cancellation order was passed and referred to a previous High Court order in W.P No.9876 of 2026, seeking similar disposal. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, did not dispute the submissions regarding directions issued in similar circumstances.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. It held that the petitioner should file an application for revocation of the cancelled registration and also submit draft returns that would be filed if the registration is restored. The petitioner was directed to deposit all taxes due by 01.11.2026. The Registering Authority (Respondent No. 1) was instructed to receive the tax payment before considering the revocation application. The Authority must then consider the petitioner's revocation application and pass orders within 15 days of its receipt. If the application is accepted, the petitioner's registration will be restored, and it will be required to file all pending returns. The Court also provided for manual filing of the revocation application if online filing presents difficulties, with the respondent being obligated to accept it. The Court did not explicitly decide on the validity of the original cancellation order but provided a procedural path for restoration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration was valid without affording proper opportunity to the petitioner, as per the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? 2. Whether the High Court can direct the restoration of GST registration in circumstances similar to those in W.P No.9876 of 2026? The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was passed without providing a proper opportunity to be heard. It relied on a previous High Court order in W.P No.9876 of 2026, suggesting that similar writ petitions have been entertained and disposed of with specific directions. The revenue, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader, did not dispute the petitioner's submissions regarding the directions issued in similar cases, implying an acceptance of the petitioner's plea for a procedural remedy.