M/S. Sri Mallikarjuna Enterprises vs. The Superintendent Of Central Tax

Held

The Court, having considered the facts and circumstances, was inclined to allow liberty to the petitioner. The petitioner was permitted 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 submission was not accepted due to technical reasons, the petitioner was allowed to submit the application 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 did not explicitly address the arbitrariness of the cancellation order or the specific provisions of the GST Act relating to cancellation and revocation, focusing instead on providing a procedural remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sri Mallikarjuna Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The registration was cancelled by the Superintendent of Central Tax on July 17, 2025, in Form GST REG-19, for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner appealed this order, but the appeal was rejected on grounds of delay. The petitioner then approached the High Court, seeking to quash the cancellation order and the appellate order, and to direct the respondents to restore the registration and permit the filing of pending returns and payment of tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner cited financial difficulties as the reason for non-filing returns and stated that the GST portal did not allow manual submission of the revocation application due to time limits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months, without considering the petitioner's financial difficulties and inability to file returns, is arbitrary and void? 2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file an application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration manually, given the technical limitations of the GST portal? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the non-filing of returns was due to financial difficulties and not intentional delay. They contended that the GST portal did not permit them to file a revocation application beyond the prescribed time limit, and therefore, they prayed for a direction to the respondent to entertain their application manually and decide it in accordance with law. Revenue's Arguments: The learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submitted that the GST registration certificate was cancelled due to the apparent reason of non-filing of returns for a consecutive period of six months.