THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEARING REFERENCE NUMBER ZA2904260525493 DATED 13.04.2026 AND TO QUASH THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER OF REJECTION OF APPLICATION FOR REVOCATION OF CANCELLATION PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING REFERENCE NO.ZA290526032292K DATED 8.5.26 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ANNEXURE-L RESPECTIVELY; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES FOR REVOCATION AND RESTORATION OF PETITIONERS REGISTRATION BEARING GSTN NO.29AZLPJ4497N1ZC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner, who asserts that he is in the business of trading in scrap iron and steel, has called in question the decision to cancel GST registration and the decision to reject the application for revocation of cancellation. These impugned orders are dated 13.04.2026 and 08.05.2026 and are produced as Annexures - C and L. The order dated 13.04.2026, as seen from the records, is after a Show Cause Notice dated 27.03.2026, and this Notice is issued in the premise that the petitioner does not conduct any business from the declared place of business but is wrongfully availing ITC. The petitioner's application for revocation of cancellation is rejected on the ground that the officers have visited the petitioner's premises on 26.03.2026 and it was found out that the petitioner has no business in such premises.

2. Sri K. M. Shivayogiswamy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the petition averments, submits that during the relevant time the petitioner was out of town because of certain family issues and that the petitioner has not been served with a Show Cause Notice dated 27.03.2026. The learned counsel argues that therefore this Court must interfere with the order of cancellation of GST registration dated 13.04.2026 with liberty to the authorities to inspect the petitioner’s premises once again and take action.

3. Sri Aravind V. Chavan, a learned standing counsel for the respondents who is called upon to accept notice, submits that even if the petitioner could demonstrate that he is not served with a Show Cause Notice or that on the date of inspection [26.03.2026] he was outside and therefore there is an error, this Court may interfere only with the order dated 08.05.2026 and restore the proceedings for reconsideration calling upon the second respondent to decide expeditiously on whether there must be revocation.

4. These circumstances and submissions are considered. Whether the petitioner is not conducting business in the declared place of business or he had closed the premises temporarily because of certain personal reasons are factual aspects that will have to be verified based on the documents that have been furnished. The second respondent will have to consider these documents after extending a personal hearing to the petitioner. The order of rejection dated 08.05.2026 is found wanting in these regards because it cannot be disputed that the petitioner has filed several applications along with the application for revocation which have not been considered. Hence, the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed in-part and the second respondent's order dated 08.05.2026 [Annexure-L] is quashed restoring the proceedings to the second respondent, calling upon this respondent to extend to the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing on 16.06.2026, or such date as early as possible after 16.06.2026, and decide on the petitioner's request for revocation by 30.06.2026.