M/S. Jaycon Homes Private Limited vs. Deputy State Tax Officer

Held

The Court, considering the submissions of both parties and the facts and circumstances, deemed it proper to grant the petitioner liberty to file a fresh application for revocation of cancellation of registration before the competent authority. This fresh application is to be filed manually within a period of two weeks. The Court directed that if such an application is filed, the competent authority shall consider it in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by the earlier rejection of the application due to the failure to file a reply. The Court did not explicitly address the legality or arbitrariness of the initial rejection order, focusing instead on providing a procedural remedy. The issue of violation of Article 19(1)(g) was not expressly decided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Jaycon Homes Private Limited, had its GST registration cancelled on 17.03.2025. They filed an application for revocation of this cancellation on 25.03.2025. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued on 28.04.2026, to which the petitioner failed to file a reply. Consequently, their application for revocation was rejected by the Deputy State Tax Officer (1st Respondent) on 12.05.2026. By this time, the period for filing an appeal against the cancellation order had also expired. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the rejection order, arguing that the show cause notice was uploaded to the GST portal over a year after their revocation application, without direct intimation, and their tax consultant's delayed monitoring prevented a timely reply. They sought an opportunity to file a reply or a fresh revocation application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the 1st Respondent in rejecting the petitioner's application for revocation of cancellation of registration, vide order dated 12.05.2026, is 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, particularly in light of the delayed issuance of the show cause notice and the petitioner's failure to file a reply. Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was uploaded to the GST portal more than a year after their revocation application was filed, without any direct intimation. This delay, coupled with their tax consultant not monitoring the portal regularly, led to their inability to file a reply. They sought an opportunity to either file a reply to the show cause notice for fresh consideration of their revocation application or to file a fresh application for revocation. Respondents' contentions: The learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax submitted that the petitioner may be allowed to submit a fresh application for revocation of cancellation of registration before the competent authority within a stipulated period, which would then be considered by the authority in accordance with law.