SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 22332

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice C. SARAVANAN
SRI. K.GANAPATHI – Appellant
Versus
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER – Respondent



##PAGE1##

W.P.No.8666 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 05.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

W.P.No.8666 of 2024

and

W.M.P.No.9655 of 2024

Sri. K. Ganapathi ... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Assistant Commissioner,

Rasipuram,

2. The State Tax Officer,

Rasipuram Circle,

Rasipuram.

3. The District Rural Development Agency,

Office of the Collector,

Trichengode Main Road,

Namakkal. ... Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for

issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the

first respondent in his proceeding in Ref No. ZA331022079206Y dated

26.10.2022 passed therein and the consequential rejection of revocation

application of cancellation in Ref. No. ZA3312222560055 dated 27.12.2022

1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 02:20:50 pm )

##PAGE2##

W.P.No.8666 of 2024

and Ref. No. ZA330923041692K dated 11.09.2023 and quash the same and

further direct the first respondent to restore the petitioner’s registration

GSTIN: 33AIFPG3239G1ZN.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Raveendran

For Respondents : Mr.V.Prasanth Kiran

Government Advocate

ORDER

The petitioner is before the Court against the impugned Order dated

26.10.2022 passed by the 1st respondent, whereby the GST registration issued

to the petitioner on 02.08.2018 was cancelled with effect from 11.10.2022.

2. The impugned order was preceded by a Show Cause Notice in Form

GST REG-17/31 dated 11.10.2022, to which, the petitioner failed to respond.

3. During the course of the hearing, it emerged that the GST

registration was cancelled because, at the time of inspection, the petitioner

was not available at the place of business and therefore, it was construed that

the petitioner business was not in existence.

2/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 02:20:50 pm )

##PAGE3##

W.P.No.8666 of 2024

4. It also noticed that the assessment proceedings culminated in the

Orders dated 06.12.2022 for the tax periods 2018-2019, 2019-2020 and 2020-

2021 and that the petitioner had challenged the same before this Court in

W.P.Nos.8668, 8671 & 8673 of 2024.

5. Further, the petitioner withdrew the above writ petitions on

29.10.2025 with a view to settle the dispute with the department under the

amnesty provisions under Section 128-A of the respective GST Enactments.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner is, however, unable to confirm

the payment of tax covered by the impugned order and the date of the

application said to have been filed under Section 128-A of the respective

GST enactments.

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioner is a works contractor and unless the GST registration is revived, the

petitioner will not be able to participate in the tenders floated by the

Government.

8. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

3/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 02:20:50 pm )

##PAGE4##

W.P.No.8666 of 2024

the cancellation of the GST registration of the petitioner denied the petitioner

the opportunity to participate in the tender process and thus, infringes the

petitioner’s right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

9. The Learned Government Advocate for the respondents would

submit that after the impugned cancellation of GST registration was made on

26.10.2022 in response to the notice in Form GST REG-17/31 dated

11.10.2022, the petitioner filed two applications for revocation of

cancellation under Section 30 of the respective GST enactments, however,

the petitioner failed to respond to the show cause notices issued and thus, the

orders have been passed as detailed below:-

“You have not replied to the notice issued vide reference no.

ZA3312220517008 dated 13/12/2022 within the time specified

therein. Therefore, your application is hereby rejected in

accordance with the provisions of the Act.”

“You have not replied to the notice issued vide reference no.

ZA330823251298E dated 30/08/2023 within the time specified

therein. Therefore, yo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top