Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a proprietary business trading under the name "Neel Kamal Glass & Plywood" and holding GST registration No. 37BABPR5458P1ZW, had its GST registration cancelled by the 4th respondent vide proceedings dated 07.07.2023, on the ground that the petitioner had not replied to a show-cause notice dated 26.06.2023 within the time granted. The petitioner's case was that a reply had in fact been sent on 06.07.2023 (and again on the date of cancellation itself), explaining that on 26.06.2023 a person claiming to be a verification officer had called, but the petitioner was away from the place of business at the time and could not be present for physical verification.

The petitioner then applied on 04.08.2023 for revocation of the cancellation. In response, a notice was issued proposing to reject the revocation application on the ground that "another firm was running with the name of NEEL KAMAL GLASS & PLYWOOD" at the same registered address. The petitioner replied on 04.09.2023 stating that the business was in fact being carried on at the registered address, that a change of mobile number had disrupted communication, and offered photographs of the premises in support. By order dated 04.10.2023, the revocation application was rejected on the same ground — that another entity of the same name was operating at the address.

Aggrieved by both the cancellation and the rejection of revocation, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration and the rejection of the revocation application, based on a disputed factual finding that another firm was operating at the registered address, is amenable to interference in writ jurisdiction.
  2. Whether the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity before the orders were passed.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner's reply to the show-cause notice, though technically late, was in fact submitted and ought to have been considered on merits.
  • The petitioner was actually running the business at the registered address; the finding to the contrary was factually incorrect.
  • A change of mobile number, not any wrongdoing, caused the communication gap that led to the missed verification.
  • The petitioner offered to produce photographic evidence of the business premises to rebut the department's finding.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The petitioner did not, in its reply, specifically deny the department's core allegation — that a different firm of the same name was operating at the registered address.
  • The cancellation and revocation-rejection orders were passed by the Deputy Assistant Commissioner after affording an opportunity of hearing, in consonance with natural justice.
  • An efficacious statutory appellate remedy under the GST Act was available and had not been availed of.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held that whether the petitioner was actually carrying on business at the registered address, or whether a different firm was operating there, is a disputed question of fact.
  • Such factual disputes, the Court observed, are for the appropriate appellate forum to examine on evidence — not for a writ court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226.
  • The Court noted that the petitioner had an undisputed statutory alternative remedy of appeal under the GST Act, which it was at liberty to avail of.
  • The Writ Petition was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Important Clarification

This case is a reminder that a High Court exercising writ jurisdiction is not the forum to resolve disputed factual questions — such as whether a taxpayer was genuinely operating from its registered address — when the GST Act provides a statutory appeal mechanism. Taxpayers facing registration cancellation on similar grounds should focus on building a strong factual record (photographs, utility bills, rent agreements, witness statements) for the appellate authority rather than approaching the High Court directly.

Sections Involved

  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — registration, cancellation and revocation of cancellation of registration
  • Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 (writ jurisdiction) and Article 14

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of against the petitioner on the writ petition, without a decision on the underlying factual dispute — liberty was granted to pursue the statutory appeal under the GST Act.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
  • Case No.: Writ Petition No. 29095 of 2023
  • Coram: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu
  • Date of Order: 08.11.2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

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.