Case Law Details
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.
The Court set aside the GST registration cancellation order and the appellate order dated 01.07.2025, restoring the GST registration subject to the petitioner filing all pending returns within 30 days and paying all pending dues, including any penalty imposed by the competent authority. The petitioner was also directed to deposit costs of ₹10,000 to the Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund within two weeks. The Court clarified that the order was passed in the peculiar facts of the case and should not be treated as a precedent.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. On 08.07.2026, the following order was passed:
1. The Petitioner is a small-time businessman, who is operating Tempo service to earn livelihood for him and his family.
2. On account of failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six (06) months, his GST registration bearing no. 07CPYPK1865AIZN was cancelled with retrospective effect vide Order dated 17.11.2023.
3. Following which the Petitioner filed an Appeal, which came to be dismissed vide Order dated 01.07.2025 solely on ground of being time barred.
4. Learned counsel representing the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is prepared to pay penalty and fine, however, his right to earn livelihood cannot be taken away in this manner.
5. Learned counsel representing the Respondent submits that the Petitioner is required to file an Appeal before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT). She Submits that the Appellate Authority does not possess power to condone the delay of more than one (01) year.
6. This Court has called upon learned counsel representing the Respondent to suggest a solution in the peculiar facts of the present case.
7. List on 09.07.2026 in the Supplementary List.
2. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, learned counsel representing the Respondent informs the Court that the Department has no incriminating information regarding the antecedents of the Petitioner. She, however, submits that the authority has taken the action in accordance with Section 29(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
3. Undoubtedly, the Petitioner has failed to file returns within the time as prescribed in the statute. At the same time, in the absence of any other material, the Petitioner cannot be left remediless, particularly when he is willing to comply with the statutory requirements and clear the pending dues.
4. As already noticed, the Petitioner is running a tempo service, namely, a small goods-carriage service using light commercial vehicles.
5. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly when this is the first default committed by the Petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant relief in exercise of Writ jurisdiction.
6. Consequently, the order cancelling the GST registration of the Petitioner, and the appellate order dated 01.07.2025 are set aside. The GST registration of the Petitioner shall stand restored forthwith, subject to the Petitioner filing all pending returns within a period of next thirty (30) days by paying all pending dues, including penalty, if any, as may be leviable and imposed by the Competent Authority in accordance with law.
7. It is needless to observe that this order has been passed in the peculiar facts of the present case and it shall not be treated as precedent.
8. However, keeping in view the facts of the case, the Petitioner is directed to deposit cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the „Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund‟. The proof of payment of costs shall be filed within a period of two (02) weeks. With the aforesaid observations, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of.
Author Bio
