M/S Gollana Raju Contractor vs. Tthe Superintendent Of Central Tax

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Gollana Raju Contractor, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration by the Superintendent of Central Tax, Warangal Division. The registration was cancelled vide an order dated 21.10.2025 in Form GST REG-19 for non-filing of returns for a consecutive period of six months. The petitioner contended that there were no outstanding GST dues and the non-filing of returns was due to a misunderstanding by their accountant, not intentional delay. The petitioner was unable to file an appeal as the online portal had exceeded the time limit. Therefore, the petitioner sought a direction to the respondent to entertain their application for revocation of cancellation manually.

Held

The High Court, considering the facts and circumstances, including the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months, directed that if the petitioner approaches the competent authority within two weeks from the date of the order for submission of an application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration certificate in physical form, the competent authority shall entertain it. The competent authority is then directed to take a decision on the application in accordance with law within three weeks thereafter. The Court disposed of the writ petition accordingly, with no order as to costs. The issue of whether the cancellation was arbitrary or contrary to law was not directly decided, but the Court provided a procedural remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months, when the petitioner claims no outstanding dues and a lack of intentional delay, warrants intervention by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the statutory appeal period has expired? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the cancellation was arbitrary and contrary to GST law. They asserted that the non-filing of returns was an oversight by their accountant, who mistakenly believed there was no business activity during the period. They also highlighted that the GST portal did not permit them to file a revocation application due to the time bar. Therefore, they prayed for a direction to the respondent to accept their application manually. Respondents' arguments: The learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC stated they had no instructions regarding the petitioner's assertion of no outstanding dues. However, they confirmed that the cancellation was based on the non-filing of returns for six consecutive months.