Arvind Kumar Prajapathi Vs Deputy State Tax Officer (Telangana High Court)
Summary: The Telangana High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the cancellation of Arvind Kumar Prajapathi’s GST registration and the subsequent rejection of his revocation application. According to the petitioner, proceedings for cancellation had initially been dropped through Form GST REG-20 on 24 January 2026 after consideration of his reply and submissions. A fresh show cause notice was issued on the same date. The petitioner did not reply, and the registration was cancelled through Form GST REG-19 on 23 February 2026. He applied for revocation on 25 February 2026, but did not respond to a show cause notice proposing rejection of that application. The application was rejected through Form GST REG-05 on 6 May 2026. During the writ hearing, the petitioner sought permission to appeal against the impugned orders and requested consideration of the delay in approaching the appellate authority. The State submitted that he could raise all available grounds in an appeal. The High Court permitted him to file an appeal within two weeks along with an application for condonation of delay. It directed the appellate authority to consider the explanation for delay and, if satisfied, decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. The Court expressed no view on the merits of the cancellation or revocation dispute. It did not itself condone the delay or restore the registration.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel appears for petitioner.
Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax appears for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. In the instant Writ Petition, the petitioner alleges that vide Order for Dropping the Proceedings for Cancellation of Registration issued in FORM GST REG-20 dated 24.01.2026, respondent No.1 upon consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner and the submissions made during the course of hearing, vacated the proceedings initiated for cancellation of registration. Thereafter, respondent No.1 issued show cause notice for cancellation of registration dated 24.01.2026 to which the petitioner could not file reply. As such, respondent No.1 passed the Order for Cancellation of Registration in FORM GST REG-19 dated 23.02.2026. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application dated 25.02.2026 for revocation of the said Order for Cancellation of Registration, upon which, respondent No.1 issued show cause notice for rejection of application for revocation of cancellation of registration dated 20.03.2026. On the ground of not submitting the reply to the said show cause notice, respondent No.1 passed an Order of Rejection of Application for Revocation of Cancellation in FORM GST REG-05 dated 06.05.2026. Thereafter, the petitioner shifted his business to the new premises situated at Mansoorabad, L.B. Nagar, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District. As such, the petitioner filed a representation dated 20.08.2026 to respondent No.2 with a request to revoke his Registration Certificate and transfer the same to the Circle concerned in view of change of his business place. Therefore, he prays for setting aside the Order for Cancellation of Registration in FORM GST REG-19 dated 23.02.2026 and Order of Rejection of Application for Revocation of Cancellation in FORM GST REG-05 dated 06.05.2026 issued by respondent No.1.
3. However, after arguing the case for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned orders. He submits that some delay might have been occurred in approaching the appellate authority and therefore, he may be directed to consider it sympathetically.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent Department submits that the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned orders taking all the grounds as are available in law and on facts before the appellate authority.
5. However, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, since the petitioner seeks liberty to prefer an appeal, we do not wish to comment on the merits of the contentions raised by the parties.
6. However, we grant liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal within a period of two weeks along with a delay condonation application. The petitioner may take all such grounds of law and facts in the memo of appeal as are available to it. Needless to say, the appellate authority would take into account the explanation for delay and if he is satisfied on the point of delay, he shall proceed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law.
Therefore, the instant Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
