Facts of the Case

M/s Vijay Bharath Constructions Private Limited, the petitioner, was a private limited company engaged in the business of construction of residential apartments and other construction works.

After introduction of the GST regime through enactment of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and other laws, the petitioner obtained GST registration vide Registration Certificate dated 22.02.2018, bearing GST Registration No. 36AABCV1618H2ZG.

The Superintendent of Central Tax, Malkajgiri Range, issued a show cause notice dated 30.11.2018, requiring the petitioner to explain why its GST registration should not be cancelled.

The petitioner filed its reply on 11.12.2018. Despite the reply, the first respondent passed an order dated 27.12.2018, cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration.

The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals-II). However, by order dated 02.05.2022, the appeal was rejected as being barred by limitation.

Aggrieved by both the original GST registration cancellation order dated 27.12.2018 and the appellate rejection order dated 02.05.2022, the petitioner approached the Telangana High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner sought setting aside of the appellate rejection order as well as the underlying cancellation of GST registration, alleging that the action was illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the principles of natural justice, unsustainable in law and without jurisdiction.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the GST registration cancellation order dated 27.12.2018 should be sustained when the petitioner had submitted a reply to the show cause notice before cancellation.
  2. Whether the appellate order dated 02.05.2022, rejecting the petitioner’s appeal as barred by limitation, should continue to operate.
  3. Whether, in view of identical grievances having already been dealt with by the Telangana High Court through remand to the primary authority, the petitioner was entitled to similar relief on the principle of parity.
  4. Whether the matter should be remanded to the original authority for a fresh decision in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
  5. Whether the impugned original and appellate orders could be set aside without the High Court itself deciding the underlying GST cancellation dispute on merits.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner challenged both:

  • the GST registration cancellation order dated 27.12.2018 passed by the first respondent; and
  • the order-in-appeal dated 02.05.2022 passed by the second respondent.

The petitioner’s case, as reflected from the writ petition and the order, was that:

  • a show cause notice had been issued on 30.11.2018;
  • the petitioner had submitted a reply on 11.12.2018;
  • despite such reply, the GST registration was cancelled on 27.12.2018;
  • the subsequent statutory appeal was rejected as barred by limitation;
  • the cancellation and appellate rejection were challenged as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the principles of natural justice, unsustainable in law and without jurisdiction; and
  • the petitioner sought judicial intervention for setting aside the impugned orders.

The petitioner also sought restoration-related interim relief in the accompanying interlocutory application pending disposal of the writ petition.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents were represented before the High Court by learned counsel.

The order records appearance of:

  • learned counsel for the petitioner;
  • learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3; and
  • learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4.

However, the High Court’s order does not separately record any detailed substantive counter-arguments advanced by the respondents on the merits of the cancellation order or the limitation-based appellate rejection.

The Court was informed at the Bar that writ petitions raising an identical grievance had already been allowed by the same High Court by remitting the matters to the primary authority for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the Court proceeded on the principle of parity.

Court Order / Findings

The Telangana High Court noted that writ petitions raising an identical grievance had already been allowed by the Court by remitting the matters back to the primary authority for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Following the same approach and applying the principle of parity, the High Court:

  • set aside the GST registration cancellation order dated 27.12.2018;
  • set aside the appellate order dated 02.05.2022;
  • remanded the matter back to respondent No. 1, namely the primary authority;
  • directed that a fresh decision be taken in accordance with law; and
  • required that the petitioner be given a due opportunity of hearing.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed.

The Court made no order as to costs.

All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were directed to stand closed.

Important Clarification

This judgment should not be interpreted as an unconditional or final restoration of the petitioner’s GST registration by the High Court.

The Court did not itself adjudicate the underlying cancellation controversy finally on merits. Instead, it:

  1. set aside the original cancellation order;
  2. set aside the appellate rejection order;
  3. remanded the matter to the first respondent; and
  4. required a fresh decision in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Therefore, the central legal effect of the judgment is remand and fresh adjudication, rather than a final determination by the High Court that the GST registration must permanently remain restored.

Another significant clarification is that the appeal had been rejected as barred by limitation, but the High Court, applying parity with earlier identical-grievance writ petitions, set aside both the cancellation order and the appellate order and restored the matter to the primary authority for reconsideration.

Sections / Legal Provisions Involved

Article 226 of the Constitution of India

The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Telangana High Court seeking interference with the GST registration cancellation order and the appellate rejection order.

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

The dispute arose under the GST regime following enactment of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and other applicable GST laws.

Important accuracy note: The uploaded High Court order does not expressly identify a specific section number of the CGST Act as the statutory provision under which the cancellation order was passed. Therefore, no specific CGST section should be attributed to the Court’s ruling beyond what is expressly recorded in the judgment.

Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

The accompanying I.A. No. 1 of 2022 was presented under Section 151 CPC seeking, pending disposal of the writ petition, suspension of the appellate order dated 02.05.2022 and a direction for restoration of the petitioner’s GST registration.

Link to download the order https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783334211_1137compressed.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.