Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court noted that Section 30 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, provides a remedy for the petitioner to seek revocation of the cancellation of registration by filing an appropriate petition before the concerned authority. Given that the impugned order was dated 09.10.2026, the petitioner had sufficient time to pursue this remedy. The Court held that the facts and grounds raised in the writ petition needed to be scrutinized by the authority concerned. Therefore, liberty was granted to the petitioner to move an appropriate petition under Section 30 of the Act, supported by relevant documents, to establish that her business is being operated from the declared place. The authorities were directed to decide this petition expeditiously, preferably within four weeks of its filing. The petitioner was also given the liberty to seek a personal hearing. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.

Facts

The petitioner, Mrs. Aqsa Begum, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 09.10.2026, which cancelled her GST registration. The cancellation was based on a show-cause notice dated 15.09.2026, alleging that the petitioner was not conducting any business from the declared place of business, as per Rule 21(a) of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. A panchanama report also indicated that the business was not being operated from the declared premises. The petitioner sought to set aside the show-cause notice and the cancellation order, and to restore her GST registration from the original date of registration, 18.05.2026.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and in violation of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and its Rules, based on the allegations of non-operation of business from the declared place? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the actions of the respondents in issuing the show-cause notice and the subsequent cancellation order were illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and in complete violation of the mandatory provisions of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The petitioner sought the setting aside of these notices and orders and the restoration of her registration. Respondents' contention: The respondents' argument is not explicitly recorded in the judgment. However, the basis of their action was the panchanama report and the alleged non-compliance with Rule 21(a) of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.