Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Sanarpatti Panchayath, represented by its Special Officer/BDO P. Kamaraj, approached the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging the cancellation of its GST registration.

The petitioner sought issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for:

  • calling for the records relating to Reference No. ZA3307252150041 dated 21.07.2025;
  • quashing the said order as illegal and arbitrary; and
  • directing the respondent to revoke the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration.

The respondent was the Commercial Tax Officer, Commercial Tax Building, Vedasanthur. The identity of the parties, the challenged reference number, the date of cancellation order and the precise writ relief sought are recorded on page 1 of the judgment.

When the matter came up for hearing, both learned counsel agreed that the dispute was covered by the Madras High Court’s earlier decision in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST), Salem and Erode, arising from W.P. Nos. 25048 of 2021 etc. batch cases.

Issues Involved

The principal issues involved were:

  1. Whether the GST registration cancellation order dated 21.07.2025 was liable to be set aside.
  2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to restoration or revival of its cancelled GST registration.
  3. Whether the case was directly governed by the earlier Madras High Court judgment in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST), Salem and Erode.
  4. Whether revival should be subject to compliance with conditions concerning filing of pending returns and payment of tax, interest, fine and fee.
  5. Whether liabilities for periods prior to cancellation could be discharged by adjustment against unutilised or unclaimed ITC.
  6. Whether unutilised or earned ITC could be used without prior scrutiny and approval by the competent departmental officer.
  7. Whether GST liability for the period subsequent to cancellation was required to be paid in cash along with filing of returns declaring correct value of supplies.
  8. Whether the department could impose restrictions to prevent undue passing of ITC or bill trading pending scrutiny.
  9. Whether the GST portal architecture should facilitate filing of returns and payment of tax, penalty and fine for taxpayers whose registrations are revived under the applicable directions.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner challenged the cancellation order dated 21.07.2025 as illegal and arbitrary and sought restoration of its GST registration.

At the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel accepted and relied upon the legal position flowing from Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center, contending in effect that the petitioner’s case was covered by that judgment and should receive equivalent relief subject to the same conditions.

The petitioner therefore sought setting aside of the impugned cancellation order and revival of registration under the compliance framework already prescribed in the binding precedent relied upon before the Court.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondent was represented by the learned Government Standing Counsel.

The judgment specifically records that both learned counsel were ad idem, meaning they were in agreement, that the matter was covered by the judgment in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST), Salem and Erode.

Accordingly, the respondent did not press a contrary legal position in the order as recorded. The Court proceeded by applying the conditions extracted from paragraph 229 of the earlier judgment.

Court Order / Findings

The Madras High Court found that the present case was covered by Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center and reproduced the operative portion of paragraph 229 of that decision.

The Court ultimately held:

The impugned order dated 21.07.2025 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed on the same terms as extracted from Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center.

The Court imposed no costs.

The operative compliance framework applied by the Court was as follows:

  1. Returns for period prior to cancellation: The petitioner must file returns for the period prior to cancellation, if not already filed, together with unpaid tax, interest for belated payment, and applicable fine/fee for delayed filing, within 45 days from receipt of a copy of the order, if not already paid.
  2. No adjustment from ITC for specified payments: Payment of tax, interest, fine/fee and related amounts under the stipulated condition shall not be made or adjusted from unutilised or unclaimed Input Tax Credit lying with the petitioner.
  3. Unutilised ITC subject to scrutiny: If any Input Tax Credit remains unutilised, it shall not be utilised until it is scrutinised and approved by an appropriate or competent departmental officer.
  4. Only approved ITC may be used later: Only such approved ITC may thereafter be utilised for discharge of future tax liability under the Act and Rules.
  5. Post-cancellation period compliance: The petitioner must pay GST and file returns for the period subsequent to cancellation, declaring the correct value of supplies, and such GST payment shall be in cash.
  6. Earned ITC requires approval: Any ITC earned shall be allowed to be utilised only after scrutiny and approval by the respondent or other competent authority.
  7. Department may impose safeguards: The respondent may impose restrictions or limitations considered necessary to prevent undue passing of ITC and to ensure there is no violation or attempt at bill trading by taking advantage of the order.
  8. Revival of registration: Upon payment of tax and penalty and uploading of returns, the GST registration shall stand revived forthwith.
  9. GST portal facilitation: The respondents shall take suitable steps by instructing GST Network, New Delhi, to make appropriate changes in the GST web portal architecture to enable filing of returns and payment of tax, penalty and fine.
  10. Time for departmental exercise: The required exercise shall be completed by the respondents within 30 days from receipt of a copy of the order.

These conditions are reproduced across pages 2 to 4 of the judgment, with the final order on page 4 setting aside the cancellation order and applying the same terms.

Important Clarification

This judgment does not grant unconditional restoration of GST registration.

The crucial legal effect is that the impugned cancellation order dated 21.07.2025 was set aside because the parties agreed that the matter was covered by Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center, and the writ petition was allowed on the same terms and conditions as laid down in that precedent.

Therefore:

  • revival is linked with filing pending returns;
  • outstanding tax and related liabilities must be discharged in the manner directed;
  • specified payments cannot be adjusted against unutilised or unclaimed ITC;
  • ITC utilisation remains subject to scrutiny and approval;
  • GST for the post-cancellation period must be paid in cash under the extracted conditions;
  • safeguards may be imposed against undue ITC passing or bill trading; and
  • registration is to stand revived upon the stipulated compliance.

Another important clarification is that the judgment itself does not record an elaborate independent adjudication of disputed facts concerning the original grounds of cancellation. Instead, the Court applies the legal framework of Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center because both counsel agreed that the matter was covered by that judgment.

Sections / Legal Provisions Involved

Article 226 of the Constitution of India: The writ petition was filed under this provision seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the cancellation order and direct revocation of cancellation.

GST provisions concerning filing of returns: The applied conditions require filing of returns for periods prior and subsequent to cancellation.

GST provisions concerning tax, interest, fine and fee: The petitioner must discharge applicable liabilities for defaulted and belated periods in accordance with the conditions adopted by the Court.

Input Tax Credit provisions under the GST framework: Unutilised, unclaimed or earned ITC is subject to the restrictions and prior scrutiny/approval specifically reproduced in the order.

GST registration cancellation and revival framework: The central controversy concerns cancellation of registration and its revival upon compliance with the conditions adopted from the governing precedent.

Important drafting clarification: The judgment does not expressly identify a particular CGST/TNGST section number as the statutory provision under which the cancellation order dated 21.07.2025 was passed. Therefore, no unsupported section number should be attributed to the impugned cancellation order merely by inference.

Link to download the order -

https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783058780_357compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.