Telangana HC allows manual revocation of GST Registration citing accountant default and portal limitation

Mee Raithumitra Traders Vs Deputy State Tax Officer (Telangana High Court)

In another taxpayer-friendly procedural ruling, the Telangana High Court addressed cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns and the inability to seek revocation due to portal limitations. The Court permitted manual filing of the revocation application, recognizing practical challenges and ensuring that genuine cases are not denied relief.

Case Background

• The petitioner, M/s. Mee Raithumitra Traders, faced:
  • Cancellation of GST registration (No. 36BSTPJ3142E1ZP) via Form GST REG-19 dated 23.09.2024.
• Reason for cancellation:
  • Non-filing of returns for six consecutive months.
• Subsequent developments:
  • The petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed as time-barred.
  • Attempt to file revocation application failed due to:
    • GST portal restriction beyond limitation period.
• Reason for default:
  • The petitioner relied on an accountant who stopped filing returns without notice.
  • The petitioner was unaware of the show cause notice.
• The petitioner also claimed:
  • No outstanding GST dues.

Key Legal Issue

Whether a taxpayer can be allowed to seek revocation of GST registration through manual filing, despite expiry of limitation and portal restrictions, especially when default is due to accountant negligence.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner

• Submitted that:
  • Non-filing of returns was unintentional.
  • It occurred due to accountant’s failure.
• Claimed that:
  • There are no pending GST dues.
• Highlighted practical issue:
  • GST portal does not allow filing of revocation application beyond time limit.
• Sought:
  • Direction to allow manual filing of revocation application.

Respondent (Department)

• Submitted that:
  • Cancellation was due to non-filing of returns for six months.
• Stated that:
  • No specific instructions available regarding no dues claim.

Court Observations

• The Court noted that:
  • Cancellation arose from procedural non-compliance (return filing).
• It considered:
  • Practical difficulties due to portal limitations.
• Without examining merits, the Court:
  • Focused on enabling the petitioner to seek revocation.

Final Judgment

• The writ petition was disposed of with directions.
• Directions issued:

1. The petitioner shall: