Appeal time-barred; petitioner may pay Rs.2,46,500 late fees by 31.10.2025 and file GST returns for registration restoration within four weeks.

HC dismissed the appeal seeking restoration of registration as time-barred but allowed the petitioner, without prejudice to rights, to pay late fees of Rs. 2,46,500 on or before 31.10.2025 and file the required GST returns. Upon payment and filing, the respondent authority must consider and process the returns and, in accordance with law, pass an appropriate order restoring the registration within four weeks from the date of return filing and payment of late fees. Petition disposed.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether this Court under Article 227 may entertain challenge to departmental orders cancelling GST registration and to consequent rejection of revocation/appeal on the ground of delay.

2. Whether relief in the nature of restoration of GST registration can be granted subject to conditions (filing outstanding returns and payment of late fees and interest) when petitioner was unable to access portal credentials due to control of an erstwhile director.

3. Whether the Court may direct the revenue authority to re-consider/restore registration and process returns within a specified time on compliance by the petitioner, including accepting departmental computation of late fees or permitting payment thereof.

4. Whether the petitioner's undertaking to file returns and pay quantified late fees (and any differential as determined by the department) suffices to merit interim relief or disposal of petition by conditional direction.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Jurisdiction under Article 227 to entertain challenge to cancellation and time-barred departmental proceedings

Legal framework: The petition is filed under Article 227 challenging orders under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, including cancellation of registration and departmental rejection of revocation/appeal on account of delay.

Precedent Treatment: No precedents were cited or relied upon in the oral order.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted the petition for consideration - treating the challenge as amenable to judicial review under Article 227 - because factual grievances (inability to access portal credentials, retrospective cancellation, consequent procedural prejudice) were raised and a concrete remedy (restoration on compliance) was sought. The Court proceeded to examine factual undertakings and departmental computations rather than mechanically dismissing the challenge as non-justiciable.

Ratio vs. Obiter: The acceptance that Article 227 may be invoked to examine such factual and procedural grievances is a ratio of the order insofar as the Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction to secure compliance with statutory process and fairness.

Conclusions: The Court exercised its Article 227 jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the challenge by issuing conditional directions to the revenue authority.

Issue 2 - Grant of conditional restoration of GST registration when access to portal was obstructed by an erstwhile director

Legal framework: Under the GST scheme a registered person must file returns; cancellation and restoration/revocation procedures and appeals are governed by the GST framework. The petitioner alleged inability to file returns or prosecute revocation appeals because portal credentials (email/SMS/mobile) were controlled by an erstwhile director.

Precedent Treatment: No previous decisions were invoked to define how inability to access portal credentials affects limitation or restoration; the Court addressed the factual impediment directly.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted the factual narrative that the erstwhile director controlled the email and mobile used for GST portal communications, leading to missed communications, nil returns and inability to revive registration. Given the petitioner's undertaking to file all outstanding returns and to deposit quantified late fees (or the department's computation), the Court treated restoration as appropriate subject to strict compliance. The Court balanced the department's interest (receipt of dues and proper processing) with the petitioner's inability to access the portal and willingness to remedy defaults.

Ratio vs. Obiter: The direction permitting restoration on payment and filing is ratio: it constitutes the operative remedy fashioned by the Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction in these facts. Observations about the factual impediment are explanatory and therefore obiter beyond the specific remedial direction.

Conclusions: Restoration of registration was permitted conditionally upon payment of late fees and filing of returns; the Court's remedy turned on the petitioner's inability to access credentials and its undertaking to cure defaults.

Issue 3 - Authority and propriety of directing the revenue authority to accept returns and process restoration within a timeline upon compliance

Legal framework: Revenue authority has statutory functions to process returns, assess late fees and pass orders for cancellation/restoration under the GST framework; courts may, in appropriate cases, direct administrative action subject to law.

Precedent Treatment: Not addressed in the order.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court, without prejudicing departmental rights, directed the respondent-authority to consider the returns filed after payment of late fees and to process them in accordance with law, passing an appropriate order for restoration within four weeks from filing/payment. The direction rested on the petitioner's clear undertaking and on the department supplying a computation of late fees, thereby enabling the Court to impose a concrete compliance condition and timeline. The Court's direction reflects supervisory power to ensure timely administrative action where statutory processes are engaged and compliance is tendered.

Ratio vs. Obiter: The procedural direction to process returns and decide restoration within four weeks on compliance is a ratio of the order - an operative mandate binding the parties in these proceedings. The Court's statement that such processing should be "in accordance with law" qualifies the direction and is procedural rather than substantive interpretation of GST law.

Conclusions: The Court properly directed the revenue authority to accept and process the returns and to decide restoration within a fixed period upon receipt of payment and filing, while preserving departmental discretion to act under the GST law.

Issue 4 - Sufficiency and effect of the petitioner's undertaking to pay late fees and file outstanding returns

Legal framework: Petitioners may proffer undertakings to obtain interim or conditional relief; payment of dues and filing of returns are principal means to cure non-compliance under the GST regime.

Precedent Treatment: None cited.

Interpretation and reasoning: The petitioner filed a detailed undertaking acknowledging retrospective cancellation, prior attempts to revoke, non-filing of returns, and a quantified computation of outstanding late fees. The undertaking also accepted liability for any differential if departmental computation differed. The Court treated this undertaking as decisive for granting conditional relief: because the petitioner committed to file returns and to pay the department's computation (Rs. 2,46,500/- as placed on record) by a specified date, the Court disposed of the petition by conditioning restoration upon compliance. The Court thereby used the undertaking both as assurance of future compliance and as a practical basis for directing ministerial action by the authority.

Ratio vs. Obiter: The reliance on the undertaking as the operative basis for conditional relief is ratio. The Court's acceptance of the departmental computation and setting of a payment deadline are part of the operative order.

Conclusions: A clear, specific undertaking to file outstanding returns and to pay quantified late fees (with acceptance of differential if any) was sufficient to warrant conditional restoration and to permit disposal of the petition on those terms.

Ancillary procedural conclusions

1. The petition was disposed of by directing payment of late fees and filing of returns by the petitioner on or before the specified date; upon such compliance the revenue authority was directed to consider and process returns and pass an order for restoration within four weeks.

2. The Court discharged notice and allowed direct service by Email. These procedural directions are incidental to the operative relief and are ratio insofar as they implement the Court's conditional scheme for disposal.

---