2025 (4) TMI 1581 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Cancellation of petitioner s registration for failing to furnish the returns - complaince with due procedure contemplated under Section 29 of the CGST Act or not - HELD THAT - Though petitioner alleges that Exhibit-P2 order of cancellation is ambiguous on a perusal of the same it is noticed that the respondent has complied with due procedure contemplated under Section 29 of the CGST Act. A reading of the order of cancellation as well as the show cause notice reveals that petitioner had not furnished the final return for the period prescribed under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act. Despite the show cause notice issued to the petitioner as Exhibit-P1 he failed to respond at all. Even the opportunity for hearing granted to him was not availed. Therefore petitioner cannot now turn around and allege that there was any procedural violation. The statute provides for revocation of cancellation of registration under Section 30 of the CGST Act. The said provision was also not invoked by the petitioner. The appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act has also not been invoked by the petitioner. For more than 13 months petitioner failed to initiate any steps to challenge the order of cancellation of registration. Petitioner can thus be deemed to have acquiesced into the order cancelling his registration. Thereafter he cannot turnaround and challenge the order of cancellation of registration. Petitioner is thus estopped from challenging the impugned order. Petition dismissed.

Summary

The Kerala High Court, through Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, dismissed the petition challenging the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration. The petitioner, engaged in supplying rubber sheets and registered under the CGST/SGST Act, failed to furnish returns as required under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act. Despite issuance of a show cause notice (Exhibit-P1) and an opportunity for hearing, the petitioner neither responded nor appeared. Consequently, the registration was cancelled by order dated 19.12.2023 (Exhibit-P2), effective from 06.12.2023.The Court held that the respondent complied with the due procedure under Section 29 of the CGST Act, and found no procedural violation. The petitioner also did not invoke the revocation provision under Section 30 or the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act. After more than 13 months without challenging the cancellation, the petitioner was deemed to have acquiesced and was estopped from contesting the order. The Court concluded that the writ petition was not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution and accordingly dismissed it.