Shiv Tempo Service Vs Pr. Commissioner of Goods And Service Tax (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court considered a writ petition filed by a small businessman operating a tempo service whose GST registration had been cancelled retrospectively by order dated 17.11.2023 under Section 29(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months. His appeal was dismissed on 01.07.2025 solely on the ground of limitation.
The petitioner submitted that he was willing to pay the applicable penalty and fine but sought restoration of his registration to continue earning his livelihood. The respondent submitted that the action was taken under Section 29(2)(c) and that the appellate authority had no power to condone a delay exceeding one year. The Department also informed the Court that it had no incriminating information regarding the petitioner’s antecedents.
The High Court observed that although the petitioner had failed to file returns within the prescribed time, there was no other adverse material against him, and he was willing to comply with the statutory requirements and clear the pending dues. Considering the peculiar facts, including that this was the petitioner’s first default and that he operated a small goods-carriage service using light commercial vehicles, the Court exercised its writ jurisdiction.
