IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P. No.50007 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos.55929 & 55931 of 2025 Mohamed Ali Jinnah Aabith Ahmed ... Petitioner Vs Superintendent of GST, Vaniyambadi Range, Vaniyambadi. ... Respondent Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondent in Ref. No.ZA3305241220057 and quash the proceedings dated 25.05.2024 passed therein and further direct the respondent to restore the petitioner’s GST Registration No. 33AUJPA5278P1Z7 granted under the TNGST / CGST Act, 2017.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Chandrasekar For Respondent : Mr.Sai Srujan Tayi Senior Standing Counsel

ORDER

Mr.Sai Srujan Tayi, learned Senior Standing Counsel takes notice for the Respondent.

2. This Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself with the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent.

3. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 25.05.2024. The impugned order had preceded a Show Cause Notice in Form GST REG 17/31 dated 06.04.2024. However the petitioner failed to file a reply to the aforesaid Show Cause Notice and therefore the petitioner's GST registration, which was obtained on

23.04.2018, was cancelled with effect from 05.04.2024.

4. In para 6 of the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition the petitioner has averred as under :

“6. The petitioner states that registration certificate issued on 23.04.2018 in FORM GST REG-06, with GSTIN : 33AUJPA5278P1Z7 effective from 05.04.2024 and thereafter the petitioner had filed the monthly returns till April 2025 but the petitioner has not filed the monthly return for the periods May 2025 to November 2025. Further, the petitioner states that due to health issues in the family, personal health issues and also coupled with certain family disputes, he was unable to fully concentrate in the business as a result of which the monthly returns had not filed.”

5. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner still continue with the default for the succeeding period. The petitioner is therefore permitted to file the Return for the succeeding period together with the tax and the late fee if any.

6. The issue is prima facie covered by the decision of this Court in Tvl.Suguna Cut Piece Center, Represented by its Authorized Signatory Vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST), Salem and another, (2022) 99 GSTR 386 wherein, in Paragraph Nos.227 to 229, this Court has observed as under:-

“227. This is a fit case for exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioners by quashing the impugned orders and to grant consequential relief to the petitioners. By doing so, the Court is effectuating the object under the GST enactment of levying and collecting just tax from every assessee who either supplies goods or service. Legitimate Trade and Commerce by every supplier should be allowed to be carried on subject to payment of tax and statutory compliance. Therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed.

228. These petitioners deserve a chance and therefore should be allowed to revive their registration so that they can proceed to regularize the defaults. The authorities acting under the Act may impose penalty with the gravity of lapses committed by these petitioners by issuing notice. If required, the Central Government and the State Government may also suitably amend the Rules to levy penalty so that it acts as a deterrent on others from adopting casual approach.

229. In the light of the above discussion, these Writ Petitions are allowed subject to the following conditions:-

i. The petitioners are directed to file their returns for the period prior to the cancellation of registration, if such returns have not been already filed, together with tax defaulted which has not been paid pr