M/S. Adarsha Transport vs. Deputy State Tax Officer

Held

The Court inclined to allow liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority within two weeks from the date of the order for submission of an application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration. If the online portal did not accept the application for any technical reasons, the petitioner was permitted to submit it in physical form. The competent authority was directed to entertain the application and take a decision thereon in accordance with law within three weeks thereafter. The Court disposed of the writ petition on these terms, with no order as to costs. The specific legal provisions or precedents relied upon by either party are not explicitly detailed in the judgment excerpt provided, beyond the general reference to the GST Act and principles of natural justice.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Adarsha Transport, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration by the Deputy State Tax Officer, Warangal-Urban-II Circle, on August 12, 2025. The cancellation was due to non-filing of returns. The petitioner contended that the non-filing was unintentional, caused by their accountant discontinuing services. They attempted to file an application for revocation of cancellation online, but the GST portal rejected it as being time-barred. Consequently, the petitioner sought a direction from the High Court to the respondent authority to entertain their application manually and decide it on merits. The Special Government Pleader for State Tax acknowledged that the cancellation was for non-filing of returns.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the 1st Respondent in cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner was illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the GST Act, and violative of the principles of natural justice and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? The petitioner argued that the cancellation was illegal and arbitrary, violating principles of natural justice and their constitutional right to carry on business. They contended that the non-filing of returns was due to circumstances beyond their control (accountant's departure) and not intentional. They further argued that the GST portal's technical inability to accept their revocation application due to time bar necessitated judicial intervention. The petitioner sought a direction for manual acceptance and consideration of their revocation application. The respondents, represented by the Special Government Pleader, stated that the cancellation was based on the petitioner's non-filing of returns.