Registration Cancellation Challenge Dismissed Due to Delay and Acquiescence

Case Title: Vidyadharan V.M. v. State Tax Officer & Anr.
Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Petition No.: WP(C) No. 5457 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 11 February 2025
Category of Dispute: Registration Cancellation under GST
Relevant Sections: Section 29(2)(c), Section 30, Section 107 of CGST Act, 2017
Citation: 2025:KER:11152

Facts of the Case

1. The petitioner, engaged in the business of supplying rubber sheets, was registered under the CGST/SGST Acts (¶1).

2. A show cause notice dated 06.12.2023 was issued proposing cancellation of registration for failure to file returns (¶1).

3. Despite notice and opportunity of hearing, the petitioner neither responded nor appeared (¶1–2).

4. On 19.12.2023, registration was cancelled via order in Form GST REG-19, effective from 06.12.2023 (¶1).

5. The petitioner challenged this cancellation order after more than 13 months without pursuing available remedies (¶4).

Question(s) in Consideration

• Whether the cancellation order dated 19.12.2023 suffered from procedural infirmities under Section 29 of the CGST Act (¶3).

• Whether the petitioner, having failed to invoke remedies under Section 30 (revocation) or Section 107 (appeal), can belatedly invoke writ jurisdiction (¶4).

Observations of the Court

1. The cancellation order complied with the requirements of Section 29(2)(c) since the petitioner had failed to file returns (¶3).

2. The petitioner ignored both the show cause notice and the opportunity for hearing, hence no procedural violation existed (¶3).

3. Remedies under Section 30 (revocation) and Section 107 (appeal) were available but not exercised (¶4).

4. More than 13 months’ delay shows acquiescence; thus, petitioner is estopped from challenging cancellation (¶4).

5. Article 226 jurisdiction cannot be invoked when statutory remedies are bypassed (¶5).

Judgment of the Court

• The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner failed to avail statutory remedies in time and acquiesced to cancellation (¶5).

Between Fine Lines

• The GST registration was cancelled due to non-filing of returns.

• Petitioner failed to respond to notice or appear for hearing.

• He also did not use statutory remedies like revocation or appeal.

• After 13 months, he approached the High Court directly.

• Court held delay amounted to acceptance and dismissed the petition.

Summary of Referred Cases

No external precedents were cited in this judgment; the decision rested solely on statutory interpretation.

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.”