M/S. Bhumaiah Electricals And Civil Works vs. Deputy State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Bhumaiah Electricals and Civil Works, had its GST registration cancelled by the Deputy State Tax Officer (1st Respondent) on March 22, 2025, due to non-filing of returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner filed a time-barred appeal against this order, which was dismissed by the Appellate Joint Commissioner (2nd Respondent) on September 21, 2026. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation order and the appellate order, seeking revocation of the cancellation. The petitioner claimed that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, business suffered losses, and reliance on their accountant led to non-filing of returns. They also stated that the GST portal did not permit them to file a revocation application due to time limitations.

Held

The Court inclined to allow liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority within a period of two weeks from the date of the order for submission of an application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration online. If the online submission is not accepted for any technical reasons, the petitioner is permitted to submit the application in physical form. The competent authority is directed to entertain the application and take a decision thereon in accordance with law within a period of three weeks thereafter. The Court did not explicitly decide on the legality or arbitrariness of the cancellation order itself, but rather provided a procedural remedy. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of technical difficulties or extenuating circumstances leading to non-compliance, the competent authority should be directed to consider the application for revocation of cancellation, provided it is filed within a reasonable time.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the 1st Respondent in cancelling the GST registration certificate of the Petitioner vide GST No.36ERRPB7949M1ZU, on suo moto as illegal, arbitrary and in contravention of fundamental right to carry business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also contrary to Section 37(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, warrants interference by this Court under Article 226. Petitioner's arguments: The cancellation was illegal and arbitrary, violating the right to carry on business. Non-filing of returns was unintentional, due to reliance on an accountant and business losses post-COVID-19. The petitioner was unaware of the show-cause notice. The GST portal's technical limitations prevented timely filing of a revocation application. Respondents' arguments: The cancellation was due to non-filing of returns for a consecutive period of six months, as per the law.