Case Summary: A. Mahendra v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati
Petition No.: W.P. No. 18401 of 2025
Judgment Date: 23 July 2025
Category of Dispute: GST Registration – Revocation of Cancellation
Relevant Provisions: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Sections 29 & 30 of the CGST Act, 2017; Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017
Facts (Paras 1–2)
The petitioner, A. Mahendra, was registered under the GST regime. His GST registration (GSTIN 37BBKPM6391Q1ZM) was cancelled suo motu by the department without prior intimation. The petitioner only became aware of the cancellation when the Assistant Commissioner (respondent no. 3) informed him by letter dated 07.02.2025.
Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 22.02.2025 seeking revocation of the cancellation. However, the authorities failed to act upon his request, prompting him to approach the High Court under Article 226.
The petitioner relied on an earlier judgment in W.P. No. 790 of 2025, where the Court had directed the authority to allow filing of a revocation application and pass a reasoned order.
Questions before the Court
-
Whether the inaction of the tax authorities in considering the petitioner’s revocation request was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21?
-
Whether the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement of his GSTIN by permitting filing of returns?
Observations (Para 2–3)
The Court noted that in a similar case (W.P. No. 790/2025), it had directed the authorities to consider applications for revocation of cancellation of registration. Following the same principle, the Court held that the petitioner’s grievance arose primarily from the authorities’ failure to examine his representation.
The Court emphasized that principles of fairness and natural justice under Articles 14 and 21 required the representation to be duly considered.
Judgment (Para 3)
The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Assistant Commissioner (respondent no. 3) to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 22.02.2025 for revocation of cancellation and pass a reasoned order within three weeks from receipt of the order.
The Court did not order immediate restoration of GSTIN but mandated a timely decision-making process. No order as to costs was made.
Case References Cited
| Case | Court & Citation | Verdict / Principle |
|---|---|---|
| W.P. No. 790 of 2025 | Andhra Pradesh High Court | Authorities must permit revocation applications and pass reasoned orders in cancellation cases. |
Between Fine Lines
For businesses, this ruling highlights that revocation requests cannot be left unattended by tax officers. Even if a GST registration is cancelled suo motu, the taxpayer has a right to submit a representation, and the authority is bound to act upon it within a reasonable time. The Court’s directive ensures administrative accountability and offers relief to taxpayers facing arbitrary inaction.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
