Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a registered taxpayer holding GSTIN 37A1AP15009B1ZW, was issued a show-cause notice dated 26.06.2023 by the fourth respondent proposing cancellation of GST registration. By order dated 07.07.2023, the registration was cancelled on the ground that no reply had been filed within the time granted, though the petitioner claimed to have submitted a reply on 07.07.2023 itself, after the notice period had already lapsed. On the petitioner's subsequent application for revocation, a notice dated 04.08.2023 proposed rejection on the basis that a field-visit report showed no business was being conducted at the registered address. The petitioner filed a reply dated 04.09.2023 attributing the failed physical verification to a change of mobile number and asserting that business continued at the registered premises, supported by photographs. By order dated 04.10.2023, the fifth respondent rejected the revocation application on the same ground. The petitioner then filed this writ petition under Article 226, challenging both the cancellation order and the rejection of revocation as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and the principles of natural justice.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the field-visit finding that no business was being conducted at the petitioner's registered address, relied upon for cancellation and rejection of revocation, could be reappraised in writ jurisdiction.
  2. Whether the cancellation and revocation-rejection orders were vitiated for want of proper consideration of the petitioner's explanation.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The reply to the show-cause notice was filed on 07.07.2023 itself, though after the time granted, and was not properly considered before cancellation.
  • The petitioner was in fact carrying on business at the registered address; the failed field visit was attributable to a change of mobile number that prevented communication, and photographic evidence supported continued business activity.
  • The revocation application and supporting reply were not considered in their proper perspective by the authorities.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes contended that the petitioner had an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under the GST Act, which ought to have been availed instead of a writ.
  • A physical verification/field visit was conducted on 26.06.2023, and per the field visit report there was no business running at the registered address; the cancellation and revocation-rejection orders were passed only after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Court Order/Findings

  • The Court noted that the petitioner's own affidavit and revocation application acknowledged the field visit and admitted a "procedure mistake" in not updating changes to the business, undermining the claim of continuous operation at the registered address.
  • The Court held that whether the petitioner was carrying on business at the registered address at the relevant time is a question of fact, and the finding recorded in the cancellation and revocation-rejection orders — based on the field inspection report — is a finding of fact that cannot be reappraised in a writ petition under Article 226.
  • Since the petitioner had a statutory alternative remedy of appeal, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue that remedy.
  • The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Important Clarification

  • Disputed factual findings underlying a GST registration cancellation or revocation-rejection order — such as whether the business is actually being carried on at the registered address per a field verification report — are not ordinarily reappraised by a writ court; the taxpayer must pursue the statutory appellate remedy.
  • A taxpayer's own admissions in supporting affidavits or applications (here, an acknowledged "procedure mistake" in updating business details) can materially weaken a writ challenge to the underlying factual finding.

Sections Involved

  • Section 29, CGST Act 2017 — cancellation of registration.
  • Section 30, CGST Act 2017 — revocation of cancellation of registration.
  • Section 107, CGST Act 2017 — statutory appeal against orders of cancellation/rejection of revocation.
  • Article 226, Constitution of India — writ jurisdiction invoked to challenge the orders.

Decision – In Favour of

Decided in favour of the Department; the writ petition challenging cancellation of GST registration and rejection of the revocation application was dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

Related Case Laws

No directly on-point case notes are currently published on this site.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
  • Case No.: Writ Petition No.28853 of 2023
  • CNR: Not available
  • Coram: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu
  • Decision Date: 08-11-2023
  • Disposal Nature: Dismissed

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (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.