THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No.30371 of 2025

ORDER:

Heard Sri V.Veeresham, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled with effect from 31.12.2023 by the order dated 13.09.2024 (Annexure P.4) in Form GST REG-19 issued under Rule 22(3) of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Rules”), on the ground that the petitioner had failed to furnish the returns for the prescribed period in contravention of the provisions of Section 29(2)(c) of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

3. The petitioner, instead of preferring an application for revocation of cancellation of its registration before the same authority within the prescribed time or the higher authority within the extended period of time in terms of Rule 23(1) of the Rules, chose to prefer a belated appeal, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 29.09.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are no outstanding dues. The petitioner, therefore, has been compelled to approach this Court. The petitioner had sought to explain the delay on grounds of illness by enclosing the medical certificates with the memo of appeal in appeal Form GST APL-01.

5. Learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax appearing for the respondents submits that the appeal has been rejected on grounds of delay. It is not clear from the pleadings as to whether there are outstanding dues against the petitioner which, in any case, has to be deposited before any such request is to be entertained by the competent authority under Rule 23(2) of the Rules. He also points out to the time limit prescribed under Rule 23(1) of the Rules for approaching the proper officer.

However, he submits that this Court may pass appropriate orders as may deem fit in the facts of the case.

6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the petitioner, instead of approaching the proper officer or the next higher officer in terms of Rule 23(1) of the Rules, preferred an appeal which was belated. The time limit for approaching the Commissioner of Taxes also appears to have crossed.

7. Be that as it may, since the petitioner is inclined to approach the competent authority in terms of Rule 23(1) of the Rules, liberty is granted to the petitioner to do so for revocation of cancellation of its registration within a period of two weeks from today. In case such an application is filed, the competent authority in terms of Rule 23(2) of the Rules would consider the petitioner’s request in accordance with law. Needless to say that the petitioner would be required to pay any outstanding tax dues which are due against it.

8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________________

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ

______________________________________

G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J

08.10.2025

vs