Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Swamy Moorthi, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging the order dated 07.03.2026 issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Nagercoil (Rural) Assessment Circle, in Reference No. ZA3303260386799.

The petitioner sought issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order, quash the same as illegal and arbitrary, and direct the respondent to revoke the cancellation of GST registration bearing GSTIN No. 33BLGPM1164B1ZN.

When the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for both sides were ad idem that the controversy was covered by the earlier judgment of the Court in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST), Salem and Erode, rendered in W.P. Nos. 25048 of 2021 etc. batch cases.

Issues Involved

The principal issues arising in the writ petition were:

  1. Whether the GST registration cancellation order dated 07.03.2026 was liable to be set aside.
  2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to revival/restoration of the cancelled GST registration.
  3. Whether the matter was fully covered by the earlier judgment in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST), Salem and Erode.
  4. Whether revival of GST registration should be made subject to compliance with conditions relating to filing of pending returns, payment of tax, interest, fine and fee, and restrictions on utilisation of Input Tax Credit.
  5. Whether GST liability for the period subsequent to cancellation was required to be discharged in cash pending scrutiny and approval of eligible Input Tax Credit.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner challenged the cancellation order dated 07.03.2026 and sought restoration/revival of GST registration No. 33BLGPM1164B1ZN.

At the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel agreed that the matter was covered by the judgment in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST), Salem and Erode, involving restoration of cancelled GST registrations subject to specified compliance conditions.

Accordingly, the petitioner sought relief on the same terms and conditions laid down in the said precedent.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondent was represented by the learned Government Advocate.

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

Thus, the respondent’s side did not dispute the applicability of the principles and conditions laid down in the said batch judgment to the present writ petition.

Court Order / Findings

The Madras High Court noted the consensus between both sides that the matter was covered by the judgment in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST), Salem and Erode.

The Court reproduced the operative conditions from paragraph 229 of the said earlier judgment and, in view thereof, passed the following order:

  • The impugned order dated 07.03.2026 was set aside.
  • The writ petition was allowed on the same terms and conditions as extracted from the earlier judgment.
  • No costs were awarded.

The conditions governing revival of registration, as adopted by the Court, include the following:

  1. The petitioner must file returns for the period prior to cancellation, where not already filed, together with unpaid tax, interest for belated payment, and applicable fine and fee for delayed filing, within 45 days from receipt of the order, if not already paid.
  2. Tax, interest, fine, fee and related amounts cannot be paid or adjusted out of unutilised or unclaimed Input Tax Credit lying with the petitioner.
  3. Any Input Tax Credit remaining unutilised cannot be utilised until scrutinised and approved by the appropriate or competent departmental officer.
  4. Only approved Input Tax Credit may thereafter be utilised for discharge of future tax liability under the Act and Rules.
  5. GST must also be paid and returns filed for the period subsequent to cancellation by declaring the correct value of supplies, and such GST payment must be made in cash.
  6. Input Tax Credit earned during the relevant period may be utilised only after scrutiny and approval by the respondents or another competent authority.
  7. The authorities may impose appropriate restrictions or limitations to prevent undue passing of Input Tax Credit and to ensure that the relief is not misused for bill trading.
  8. Upon payment of tax and penalty and uploading of returns, the registration shall stand revived forthwith.
  9. The authorities are required to take suitable steps by instructing GST Network, New Delhi, to make necessary changes in the GST web portal architecture to permit filing of returns and payment of tax, penalty and fine.
  10. The required exercise must be carried out by the authorities within 30 days from receipt of a copy of the order.

Important Clarification

This judgment is significant because the High Court did not grant unconditional restoration of GST registration. The cancellation order was set aside and relief was granted expressly on the same terms as the earlier Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center judgment.

The order therefore clarifies that revival of cancelled GST registration remains linked with substantive tax compliance, including:

  • filing of pending returns;
  • payment of outstanding tax;
  • payment of applicable interest, fine and fee;
  • non-adjustment of specified dues against unutilised or unclaimed ITC;
  • scrutiny and approval of ITC before utilisation;
  • cash payment of GST for the period subsequent to cancellation;
  • prevention of undue passing of ITC and bill trading; and
  • necessary GST portal enablement by the authorities.

A particularly important aspect is that, upon compliance through payment of tax and penalty and uploading of returns, the registration shall stand revived forthwith in terms of the conditions adopted by the Court.

Sections

Article 226 of the Constitution of India — Writ jurisdiction of the High Court invoked for issuance of Certiorarified Mandamus.

GST Registration Cancellation and Revival Framework — The dispute concerns cancellation and consequential revival/restoration of GST registration.

Link to download the order -

https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783068569_421compressed.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.