Mohammed Basharathullah Ansari vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Ansari Tours and Travels, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration certificate (No. 36AARFA3594Q3ZG) by the 5th Respondent (Assistant Commissioner, Central Tax and Service Tax) on December 18, 2024. The cancellation was based on the grounds that the taxpayer had neither filed returns nor replied to notices. The petitioner contended that non-filing of returns was due to the ill-health of its partner and was not intentional. The petitioner also stated that it was unable to file an application for revocation of cancellation through the GST portal due to time limit restrictions and sought directions for manual submission and consideration of its application.

Held

The Court, considering the facts and circumstances, inclined to allow the petitioner liberty to approach the competent authority within two weeks from the date of the order. The petitioner was directed to submit an application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration, either online or in physical form if technical reasons prevented online submission. The competent authority was directed to entertain the application and take a decision in accordance with law within three weeks thereafter. The Court disposed of the writ petition with no order as to costs. The specific grounds for cancellation (non-filing of returns and non-reply to notices) were not directly adjudicated upon, but the Court provided a procedural remedy for the petitioner to seek revocation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration certificate by the 5th Respondent is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law, including the provisions of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the petitioner's fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the non-filing of returns was due to the ill-health of its partner and was not intentional. They further contended that the GST portal did not permit them to file a revocation application due to time limit restrictions and therefore prayed for the respondents to be directed to entertain their application manually. Revenue's Argument: The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the CBIC submitted that the cancellation was based on the taxpayer's failure to file returns and reply to notices.