Case Law Details
Mohamad Jafar Vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Telangana High Court)
The Telangana High Court heard a writ petition filed by Mohamad Jafar challenging the cancellation of his Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration through an order dated 05.02.2024, issued under Section 29(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The cancellation was based on the petitioner’s failure to furnish GST returns for the prescribed periods.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the petitioner had paid all outstanding tax dues to the department, but the cancellation order was passed due to a communication gap and delay between the Chartered Accountant and the department. It was argued that the petitioner should be permitted to approach the competent authority under Rule 23(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, to apply for revocation of the cancellation, explaining the circumstances and confirming payment of tax dues.
The learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents acknowledged the petitioner’s claim of tax payment and stated that, if the Court deemed appropriate, the petitioner could be allowed to apply for revocation of the cancellation, even if such an application was filed beyond the prescribed time. He referred to a similar decision by the Madras High Court in Venkatesan v. Commercial Tax Officer, Villupuram I (W.P. No.18694 of 2025), where the Court permitted a delayed application for revocation subject to conditions.
The Telangana High Court, without commenting on the merits of the case, granted liberty to the petitioner to submit an application for revocation of the GST registration cancellation within two weeks, supported by all necessary particulars. The Court directed that the competent authority should consider the application in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and all pending miscellaneous applications were closed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Learned counsel Sri V. Ganesh Bhujanga Rao appears for the petitioner.
Sri Swaroop Gorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, appears for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court against the cancellation of his GST registration vide order dated 05.02.2024 (Annexure P3) on violation of Section 29(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for failing to furnish returns for the prescribed periods.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has paid the entire tax liability to the department, but due to miscommunication and time gap between the Chartered Accountant and respondent No.1, the impugned order has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that if the petitioner is allowed to approach the competent authority under Rule 23(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax GST) Rules, 2017, for revocation of his cancellation of G.ST registration, he would prefer to seek revocation by explant all these facts and payment of tax etc., before the competent authority.
4. Learned Special Government Pleader Appearing for the respondents submits that since the petitioner claims to have discharged the tax liability to the department nt and has taken a ground of miscommunication, this Court may, if it so deems fit, allow the petitioner to poroach the competent authority for revocation of cancellation of his GST registration, though there is some dela beyond the prescribed time. He has also referred to the of decision of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Venkatesan v. Commercial Tax Officer, Villupuram I (W P.No.18694 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.20923 of 2025, dates: (4.06.2025), where, in similar circumstances, the learned Court has prescribed certain conditions to be staysail for such application to be considered by the competent authority.
5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case of the parties, we deem it proper to grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority with an application for revocation of cancellation of his GST registration. If the petitioner makes such an application supported with all necessary particulars within a period of two weeks, the competent authority would consider it in accordance with law.
6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
Author Bio
