Facts of the Case: Mohammad Jafar's GST registration (GSTIN 36COKPJ9465G1ZF) was cancelled by order dated 05.02.2024 for violation of Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, on the ground of failure to furnish returns for the prescribed period. The petitioner approached the Telangana High Court seeking a mandamus declaring the cancellation illegal and directing restoration, contending that he had in fact paid his entire tax liability but that a miscommunication between his Chartered Accountant and the tax authority resulted in the impugned order.

Issues Involved:

  1. Whether an assessee who claims to have discharged the entire tax liability, but missed the statutory window for seeking revocation due to miscommunication, should be granted liberty to approach the authority afresh.

Petitioner's Arguments:

  • The petitioner had paid the entire tax liability to the department, and the cancellation arose only due to miscommunication and a time gap between his Chartered Accountant and the tax authority.
  • He sought liberty to approach the competent authority under Rule 23(1) of the CGST Rules for revocation of cancellation, explaining these facts along with proof of tax payment.

Respondent's Arguments:

  • The Special Government Pleader for State Tax fairly submitted that, given the petitioner's claim of having discharged tax liability and the ground of miscommunication, the Court could allow the petitioner to approach the competent authority for revocation despite the delay beyond the prescribed time, citing the Madras High Court's decision in Venkatesan v. Commercial Tax Officer, Villupuram (W.P. No. 18694 of 2025), which had prescribed conditions for entertaining such belated applications.

Court Order / Findings:

  • Without commenting on the merits of either party's case, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the competent authority with an application for revocation of cancellation of his GST registration.
  • If such an application, supported with all necessary particulars, was made within two weeks, the competent authority was directed to consider it in accordance with law.

Important Clarification:

  • Even where the statutory time limit for seeking revocation of a GST registration cancellation has expired, courts may grant liberty to make a fresh application to the competent authority — particularly where the assessee claims to have discharged the tax liability — leaving the authority to examine the claim and the reasons for delay on its own merits, consistent with the approach in Venkatesan.

Sections Involved:

  • Section 29(2)(c), CGST Act, 2017 — cancellation for non-filing of returns.
  • Rule 23(1), CGST Rules, 2017 — application for revocation of cancellation of registration.

Decision – In Favour of: Assessee (procedural liberty, without adjudicating merits).

Case Details: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad; Writ Petition No. 31603 of 2025; Coram: The Hon'ble The Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Hon'ble Sri Justice G.M. Mohiuddin; Date of Order: 23rd October, 2025.

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.