Guruvannapet Farmers Producer Company Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer

Held

The High Court deemed it appropriate to direct the competent authority to pass a reasoned order on the pending application for revocation of cancellation of registration within a period of three weeks from the date of the order. The Court disposed of the writ petition with this direction. The specific issue of the legality and validity of the retrospective cancellation order was not explicitly decided on merits, but the direction for a reasoned order on the revocation application implies that the underlying cancellation order would be subject to review in that process. The Court did not make any specific findings on the constitutional violations alleged by the petitioner, nor did it explicitly address the arguments regarding the show cause notice and retrospective cancellation. The operative direction was to the competent authority to pass a reasoned order on the revocation application.

Facts

The petitioner, Guruvannapet Farmers Producer Company Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer (Respondent No. 1) cancelling its GST registration. The cancellation was made retrospective from 27.01.2021. The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, non-speaking, and violated principles of natural justice and constitutional rights. Specifically, the retrospective cancellation was not proposed in the show cause notice. The petitioner also sought directions to consider its application for revocation of cancellation and for condonation of delay, filed on 07.01.2026, by a reasoned order after a personal hearing, and to restore access to its account on the common portal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order of cancellation of GST registration, with retrospective effect from 27.01.2021, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer, is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, non-speaking, and violative of principles of natural justice and constitutional provisions (Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 265)? The petitioner contended that the retrospective cancellation was not proposed in the show cause notice and was therefore passed without proper procedure and justification. The revenue did not record any arguments in the judgment. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to directions for the consideration and disposal of its application for revocation of cancellation of registration and its application for condonation of delay by a reasoned and speaking order, after affording a personal hearing?