Ayan Steels vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court held that proceedings for determination of tax and other liabilities under Section 74A are independent of proceedings relating to the cancellation of registration. Regarding the cancellation of registration, the Court found that the petitioner has the right to seek revocation under Section 30 read with Rule 23 of the applicable GST statutes/rules. The Court noted that the time limit to apply for revocation is 90 days from the date of service of the order of cancellation. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to apply for revocation within the stipulated 90-day period. The proper officer was directed to consider and dispose of the revocation request within 60 days of receipt, after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. No order as to costs was made.

Facts

The petitioner, Ayan Steels, represented by its proprietor Ajmal Khan, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 12.08.2026, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Dindigul Town Assessment Circle, cancelling their GST registration. The cancellation was based on the ground that the petitioner does not conduct business from the declared place of business. The petitioner contended that they are indeed carrying on business at the declared location, supported by a rental agreement, electricity bill, and GPS photographs. The respondent, however, pointed out that the petitioner filed a GSTR-1 return for June 2026 disclosing outward supplies without evidence of inward receipt of goods and that a show cause notice under Section 74A was issued on 18.08.2026.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration was illegal, invalid, without jurisdiction, and violated the principles of natural justice, as argued by the petitioner? The petitioner contended that they are conducting business from the declared place and presented evidence like a rental agreement, electricity bill, and GPS photographs. 2. Whether the proceedings for cancellation of registration are independent of proceedings under Section 74A, as argued by the respondent? The respondent argued that the petitioner has a remedy of revocation under Section 30 read with Rule 23 of the applicable GST statutes/rules, with a time limit of 90 days from the date of service of the cancellation order.