Writ Dismissed as Assessee Neither Applied for Revocation Nor Filed an Appeal Within Extended Limitation Period | HC

Case Details: Arvind Singh vs. Superintendent - [2025] 172 taxmann.com 95 (Rajasthan)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, CJ. & Munnuri Laxman, J.
• Sharad Kothari, for the Petitioner.
• Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG, Mukesh Rajpurohit, Dy. S.G., Uttam Singh Rajpurohit, Kuldeep Vaishnav for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a registered taxpayer under the GST law, had his GST registration cancelled by the respondent department. Despite having the statutory remedy of filing an application for revocation under Section 30 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, or an appeal within the prescribed limitation period, the petitioner failed to take any action within the stipulated timeframe. After a prolonged delay, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court, challenging the cancellation order and seeking judicial intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner contended that similar matters had been entertained by the court previously and sought discretionary relief for reinstatement of his GST registration.

High Court Held

The Hon’ble High Court held that since the petitioner neither applied for revocation of the cancellation nor filed an appeal within the prescribed or extended limitation period, discretionary relief under Article 226 could not be granted. The court observed that the petitioner had remained indolent for a significant period, failing to exercise the available statutory remedies. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. However, the court clarified that the petitioner was at liberty to apply for fresh registration before the competent authority, and the cancellation order would not operate as a bar to such an application.