A petitioner cannot challenge a cancellation order of registration due to failure in compliance, having not utilized available statutory remedies.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner claims to be engaged in the business of supplying rubber sheets and is registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017/State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘the CGST/SGST Act). A show cause notice dated 06.12.2023 was issued proposing to cancel petitioner’s registration for failing to furnish the returns. However, petitioner failed to respond. Despite granting an opportunity of hearing also, petitioner did not even appear. Subsequently, on 19.12.2023, Exhibit-P2 order in Form GST REG-19 was issued, cancelling petitioner’s registration, treating the effective date of cancellation as 06.12.2023. Petitioner challenges the aforesaid order of cancellation.

2. I have heard Sri. Padmanathan K.V., the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Jasmin M. M., the learned Government Pleader.

3. 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 (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.

4. Apart from the above, 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.

5. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not fit to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.