Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s. Divya Fashions, having its registered office at Sattenapalli Town, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, and represented by its proprietor Narendra Kumar Sure, filed Writ Petition No.30139 of 2023 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati against the Union of India, the Additional Commissioner, CGST Appeals, Guntur, and the Superintendent (Reviews), GST Commissioner, CGST Bhavan, Guntur. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus declaring the rejection of its Appeal No.58/2023(G) GST dated 21 September 2023 as illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution, and further sought a direction to the first respondent to revoke the cancellation of its GST registration bearing GSTIN 37BFTPS9128E2ZQ, pending disposal of the writ petition. Despite the matter being called on three consecutive dates — 6 December 2023, 7 December 2023 and 21 December 2023 — there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, either in the first call or the revised call, on any of these occasions.

No explanation for the continued absence of counsel appears on the record, and the Court did not receive any application for adjournment or any communication from the petitioner's side prior to the final hearing date, leaving it with no option but to treat the matter as unpursued.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the writ petition challenging the rejection of the delayed statutory appeal against cancellation of GST registration could be proceeded with in the continued absence of the petitioner's counsel.
  2. Whether the petition ought to be dismissed for want of prosecution in view of repeated non-appearance.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Originally sought a declaration that rejection of its appeal against cancellation of GST registration, filed beyond the limitation period, was illegal, arbitrary and in violation of natural justice.
  • Sought interim revocation of the GST registration cancellation pending disposal of the writ petition, by a separate application under Section 151 CPC.
  • However, no counsel appeared to press these contentions when the matter was called on any of the three listed dates.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Union of India and CBIC authorities appeared through their Standing Counsel, Ms. Santhi Chandra, including through virtual mode.
  • No substantive arguments on the merits of the registration cancellation or the appeal rejection were required to be advanced, since the petitioner's side failed to appear and press the case.

Court Order/Findings

  • The Court recorded that on 6 December 2023, when the matter was taken up again at 1:00 pm pursuant to an earlier order of that date, learned counsel for the petitioner was not present; on 7 December 2023 there was again no representation even in the revised call; and the matter was accordingly posted to 21 December 2023.
  • On 21 December 2023 also, there was no representation for the petitioner, neither in the first call nor in the revised call.
  • Operative direction: in view of the repeated non-appearance, the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution, with no order as to costs; consequential miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, were closed.

Important Clarification

A writ petition, however serious the underlying grievance regarding cancellation of GST registration or rejection of a delayed statutory appeal, will be dismissed for want of prosecution if the petitioner's counsel repeatedly fails to appear when the matter is called, since courts cannot adjudicate contested issues in the absence of the party pressing them; such dismissal does not amount to an adjudication on the merits of the underlying cancellation or appeal-rejection order.

Taxpayers pursuing constitutional remedies against adverse GST orders must ensure diligent prosecution of their writ petitions, since courts are not obliged to keep such matters pending indefinitely in the face of repeated non-appearance, however meritorious the underlying grievance may be.

Sections Involved

  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – provisions on cancellation of registration and appeal against orders.
  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 – writ jurisdiction invoked.
  • Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – interim application seeking stay pending disposal.

Decision – In Favour of

The dismissal for want of prosecution is a procedural outcome rather than a decision on merits, and cannot honestly be characterised as a substantive win for either side. That said, since the petition stands dismissed and the underlying cancellation of registration and rejection of the delayed appeal remain undisturbed, the practical effect favours the Department, unless the petitioner seeks restoration or pursues any other available 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.30139 of 2023
  • CNR: Not available
  • Coram: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu
  • Decision Date: 21 December 2023
  • Disposal Nature: Writ petition dismissed for want of prosecution

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.