Mohamad Jafar Vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Telangana High Court)
Date: October 22, 2025
Subject Matter
Delayed application for revocation of the canceled GST registration allowed due to CA miscommunication
Summary
The petitioner's GST registration was canceled by an order dated February 5, 2024, under Section 29(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) for failure to file returns for the prescribed periods. The petitioner claimed to have paid the entire tax liability but attributed the delay in filing returns and the subsequent cancellation to miscommunication and a time gap between their Chartered Accountant and the department.
Since the statutory time limit for filing a revocation application had likely expired, the petitioner requested permission to approach the competent authority under Rule 23(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017, to seek revocation of the cancellation. The Special Government Pleader agreed that given the claim of tax discharge and miscommunication, the petitioner could be allowed to approach the authority, even with the delay.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to file a delayed application for revocation of the canceled GST registration.
Liberty Granted: Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court deemed it proper to grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority with an application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration under Rule 23(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Timeline for Application: The petitioner must make such an application, supported with all necessary particulars, within a period of two weeks.
Direction to Authority: If the application is filed within the stipulated period, the competent authority is directed to consider it in accordance with law, taking into account the petitioner's explanation for the delay and the claimed discharge of tax liability.
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.