TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 508
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ancellation of its GST registration at the behest of the Respondents. In this context the Petition assails the Order dated 8th July 2024 passed by the Respondent No. 1 under Form GST Reg-19 under which the GST registration of the Petitioner stood cancelled. Pursuant thereto, the Respondent No. 1 passed an Order of rejection of the Application for revocation of cancellation of the Petitioner's GST registration dated 14th August 2024, which is also under challenge. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 2 by an Order dated 7th October 2025 acting as the Appellate Authority, rejected the Appeal of the Petitioner filed against the said Order dated 14th August 2024 ("Impugned Orders" for short). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Issue Rul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rejecting the Application of the Petitioner for revocation of cancellation of its GST registration, mainly on the ground that the Petitioner failed to file its reply to the Notice dated 31st July 2024. 7. The Petitioner, being aggrieved by the Impugned Order dated 14th August 2024, preferred an Appeal before the Respondent No. 2 i.e. the Appellate Authority. The said Appeal was rejected by the Impugned Order dated 7th October 2025. Such rejection was primarily on the ground that the Petitioner failed to prove the bona fides of their existence at the principal place of business, upon verification. The said Order records that the Petitioner was non-existent at the declared place of business, thereby warranting cancellation of its GST regi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Petitioner is non-existent at the declared place of business. 11. Mr. Jain, on instructions, would submit that such cancellation of its GST registration is causing irreparable prejudice to the Petitioner. In view thereof, the Petitioner undertakes to make payment of all charges including penalty to the Respondents, as may be applicable, for restoring such registration. 12. Mr. J.B. Mishra, learned counsel for the Respondents, has placed due reliance on the Affidavit-in-Reply dated 3rd August 2026, filed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST. In this context, Mr. Mishra would place reliance on paragraph 19 of the said Affidavit-In-Reply. This to state that the Petitioner was never found at the declared place of business, despite phys....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Union of India & Ors. W.P. No.503 of 2026 dt. 24th June 2026, and Vani Hospitality & Catering Services LLP Vs The Deputy Commissioner State Tax W.P. No. 245 of 2026 dt. 16th July 2026, where the Court has restored the GST registration of the Petitioner on similar undertaking and conditions imposed on the Petitioner. In our considered view, this would also be one such case. More particularly, we may observe that restoration of the cancelled GST registration, in the given factual complexion, would enure to the benefit of the Petitioner and the Revenue. By adopting such course, the Petitioner would be able to undertake its business activities upon paying the charges and/or penalty, as may be applicable, in accordance with law. Equally, ....