Facts of the Case

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging (i) the fourth respondent's order dated 07.07.2023 (Ref. No. ZA3707230111770) cancelling the petitioner's GST registration bearing GSTIN 37AIAP15009B1ZW, and (ii) the fifth respondent's order dated 04.10.2023 (Ref. No. ZA3710230041449) rejecting the petitioner's application for revocation of that cancellation. The registration was cancelled following a Show Cause Notice dated 26.06.2023, on the ground that the petitioner had not submitted a reply within the time granted; petitioner's counsel conceded a reply was filed only on 07.07.2023, the same day as the cancellation order. The subsequent revocation application was rejected on the basis of a field-visit report recording that no business was found running at the registered address; the petitioner responded that a change of mobile number had disrupted communication, and furnished photographs to show the business was operational at that address. Coram: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu; order dated 08.11.2023.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the finding that no business was being carried on at the petitioner's registered address — the basis for both the cancellation and the rejection of revocation — was a pure finding of fact not amenable to reappraisal in writ jurisdiction.
  2. Whether the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy under the GST Act instead of having the matter examined afresh under Article 226.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner was in fact carrying on business at the registered address, and photographic evidence to that effect had been submitted but was not considered in proper perspective by the revoking authority.
  • Failure to respond promptly to communications was attributable to a change of mobile number, not to the business being non-existent, and this explanation was placed on record via a reply dated 04.09.2023.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The petitioner had an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under the GST Act, and the writ petition ought not to be entertained.
  • The field-visit/physical verification conducted on 26.06.2023 had found no business running at the registered address, and cancellation followed only after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing on that basis.

Court Order/Findings

  • 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 both impugned orders was prima facie based on material in the form of the field inspection report.
  • Reappraisal of such factual findings, the Court held, is not appropriately undertaken in writ jurisdiction under Article 226; the appropriate forum for that exercise is the statutory appellate authority.
  • The petition was dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under the GST Act, without costs.

Important Clarification

  • Findings on whether a taxpayer was actually conducting business at its registered address (based on a field-visit/physical verification report) are treated as findings of fact; the High Court under Article 226 will ordinarily decline to reappraise such findings and will relegate the taxpayer to the statutory appeal remedy.
  • Mere production of photographs or an explanation for non-response (e.g., a changed mobile number) does not automatically entitle a taxpayer to have the field-visit finding re-examined in writ jurisdiction.

Sections Involved

  • Section 29, Central/State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — cancellation of registration, including for non-response to a Show Cause Notice.
  • Section 30, Central/State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — revocation of cancellation of registration.
  • Section 107, Central/State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — statutory appeal remedy to which the petitioner was relegated.
  • Article 226, Constitution of India — writ jurisdiction, held inappropriate for reappraising factual findings based on a field-visit report.

Decision – In Favour of

In favour of the Department — the writ petition was dismissed and the cancellation/revocation-rejection orders were left undisturbed, subject to the petitioner's liberty to pursue a statutory appeal.

Related Case Laws

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

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh
  • Case No.: Writ Petition No.28853 of 2023
  • CNR: Not available on record
  • Coram: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu
  • Decision Date: 08.11.2023
  • Disposal Nature: Dismissed — findings on cancellation of GST registration and rejection of revocation application held to be findings of fact; petitioner relegated to statutory appeal remedy under GST Act

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.