GST Registration Revocation Overturned: Pandemic-Related Delay Accepted, Restoration Ordered with Outstanding Tax Payment Compliance

HC allowed the mandamus petition challenging GST registration revocation. The court found the petitioner's delay in appeal was justified due to COVID-19 pandemic and directed Respondent No.2 to reconsider the GST registration revocation within two weeks, subject to payment of outstanding taxes, effectively setting aside the original cancellation order.

---

---

Issues:
Petition seeking writ of Mandamus to quash impugned order revoking GST registration and direct revocation by Respondent No.2.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners sought relief through a writ to quash the order revoking GST registration and direct Respondent No.2 to revoke the cancellation. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner couldn't appeal within the prescribed time due to valid reasons and had paid all taxes up to the cancellation date. The petitioner approached the court seeking relief against the impugned order dated 29.03.2022.

2. The counsel for the petitioner relied on various judgments to support their contention. The respondents, through their counsel, opposed the petition, claiming no merit in it and requested its dismissal. The court examined the material on record and Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, highlighting the remedy available to the petitioner through an appeal under Section 107 against the cancellation of GST registration.

3. The court noted that the petitioner's inability to seek revocation within the stipulated period due to the Covid-19 pandemic was a valid reason. It held that the impugned order dismissing the appeal as not maintainable was contrary to the provisions of Section 107 and Section 30 of the CGST Act. The court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's request for revocation, subject to payment of outstanding taxes, within two weeks.

4. In the final order, the court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order revoking GST registration, and directed Respondent No.2 to reconsider the petitioner's request for revocation in line with the court's observations and relevant decisions cited. Respondent No.2 was instructed to make a decision within two weeks from receiving a copy of the court's order.

---