Facts of the Case

The petitioner, holding GSTIN 37BABPR5458P1ZW, had his GST registration cancelled by the Deputy Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) by order dated 07.07.2023, pursuant to a show-cause notice dated 26.06.2023, on the ground that no reply was filed within the time granted. The petitioner's reply, filed the same day as the cancellation order, was treated as belated. He then applied for revocation of cancellation on 04.08.2023. A notice proposing rejection cited a physical verification finding that another firm, “Neel Kamal Glass & Plywood,” was operating at his registered address. In his reply dated 04.09.2023, the petitioner claimed he was still running his business there and blamed a changed mobile number for missing the verification call. The revocation application was rejected on 04.10.2023. The petitioner then filed this writ petition under Article 226 challenging both orders as illegal, arbitrary and violative of natural justice.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration and the rejection of the revocation application were legally sustainable.
  2. Whether the finding that another firm was operating at the registered address involved a disputed question of fact not amenable to writ jurisdiction.
  3. Whether the petitioner ought to be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy under the GST Act.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner was, in fact, carrying on business at the registered address, and his reply was not considered in its proper perspective.
  • His failure to respond to the physical verification call was because he was away at his agricultural field and his registered mobile number was no longer in use — not any intent to evade GST.
  • The petitioner had photographs demonstrating that his business was being run from the registered address.
  • He was a petty businessman with limited knowledge of GST procedures and had committed only a procedural lapse in not updating his business details.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The petitioner had a statutory alternative remedy of appeal under the GST Act, which he had not availed.
  • In his reply to the show-cause notice, the petitioner did not dispute the specific ground that another firm, Neel Kamal Glass & Plywood, was found operating at the registered address.
  • The orders of cancellation and rejection of revocation were passed by the Deputy Assistant Commissioner after affording an opportunity of hearing, in consonance with natural justice.

Court Order/Findings

  • The Court found that the Government Pleader's submission — that the petitioner had not specifically denied the ground stated in the show-cause notice — was prima facie correct, as no such denial appeared on record.
  • Whether the petitioner was carrying on business at the registered address, or another firm was operating there, is a question of fact that cannot appropriately be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
  • The appropriate forum to appraise evidence and determine such a factual dispute is the statutory appellate authority, not a writ court.
  • Since the petitioner had an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under the GST Act, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition.
  • The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy, if so advised.

Important Clarification

  • Disputed factual findings in cancellation and revocation orders — such as whether a business genuinely operates from its registered premises — are not ordinarily open to re-appraisal in writ proceedings under Article 226.
  • Where a statutory appellate remedy exists under the GST Act, courts will generally decline writ jurisdiction to re-examine findings of fact.

Sections Involved

  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — governs registration, cancellation and revocation of GST registration, and provides the statutory appellate remedy invoked by the Court.
  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India — invoked by the petitioner to seek writ relief against the cancellation and revocation-rejection orders.

Decision – In Favour of

Department/Revenue. The writ petition was dismissed and the cancellation of GST registration, along with the rejection of the revocation application, was left undisturbed, the Court declining to interfere given the availability of an efficacious statutory appellate remedy and the factual nature of the dispute.

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.: W.P. No. 29095 of 2023
  • Coram: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu
  • Decision Date: 08.11.2023
  • Disposal Nature: Dismissed, no order as to costs

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.