The court affirms statutory provisions allowing extension for revocation after filing returns, emphasizing adherence to procedural norms.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a registered taxpayer under the provisions of the CGST/KSGST Act. The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of registration of the petitioner and the rejection of the application submitted by the petitioner for revocation of the said order of cancellation. 2. The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

Earlier, the petitioner was issued with a notice, proposing to cancel the registration, on the ground that, the petitioner failed to submit the returns for the months of March, 2023 to September, 2024. It was followed by Ext.P2 order of cancellation, by which, the registration was cancelled with effect from 07.10.2024. Even though an application was submitted by the petitioner to revoke the order of cancellation of registration on 11.12.2024, the same was rejected as per Ext.P3 order dated 20.12.2024, on the reason that, the petitioner failed to submit the pending returns. It is pointed out that, the petitioner submitted returns only for the month of March, 2024 and April, 2024. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances, challenging Ext.P3 and also seeking a direction to the 2^nd respondent to permit the petitioner to file returns and remit the tax for the period subsequent to October, 2024 through GST portal.

3. A statement was submitted by the respondents controverting the contentions in the writ petition and opposing the reliefs sought.

4. I have heard Sri.Rajesh Nambiar, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri.P.R.Sreejith, learned standing counsel for the respondents.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that, non-submission of returns was on account of certain disputes the petitioner had with the tax practitioner at the relevant time, and the petitioner was not aware of the non- filing of the returns as well as the order rejecting the revocation application. The learned standing counsel opposed the aforesaid contention.

6. After considering all relevant aspects and the documents submitted, I find that, even though the petitioner failed to submit the returns for the relevant months, when the application for revocation of the registration was filed, all the returns are now submitted on 26.04.2025. This fact is not in dispute.

7. This writ petition is submitted on 13.06.2025, i.e., after the filing of the returns. Going by the statutory stipulations contained in Rule 23 of the CGST Rules 2017, it can be seen that the application for revoking the order of cancellation of the registration is to be filed within a period of 90 days. However, the first proviso to Rule 23(1) contemplates that, on sufficient cause being shown in writing, the said period can be extended by the Commissioner or officers in his behalf not below the rank of Additional Commissioner or Joint Commissioner, as the case may be, for a further period not exceeding one hundred and eighty days. Going by the statutory extendable time limit, as provided above, it can be seen that, the petitioner had submitted the returns within the said period, and the writ petition was also seen filed before the expiry of the said period. Therefore, the petitioner could have submitted an application for revocation of the registration along with application to extend the time for submitting the same. Of course, it is true that, as per Ext.P3, the application submitted by the petitioner for revoking the cancellation is already rejected. However, in Ext.P3, even while rejecting, it was observed that the petitioner can file an application for revocation within 90 days of the date of cancellation and apply for revocation after filing the returns.

8. In such circumstances, in the li