IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No. 1362 of 2026 DATED : 19.01.2026 Between:

Manikanta Electronics Services Center … Petitioner AND State of Telangana, Department of Commercial Tax, Represented by its Secretary and three others … Respondents

ORDER:

Sri Kailash Nath P S S, learned counsel appears for petitioner.

Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax appears for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. The order dated 22.04.2024 imposes tax liability along with penalty upon the petitioner for the period 2018-19 which has been assailed in the instant Writ Petition primarily on the ground that after cancellation of his GST registration on 16.07.2021 on voluntary application, indicating zero tax liability, there was no reason for the petitioner to keep checking upon the portal. The order impugned has been passed pursuant to the show cause notice dated 23.01.2024 after three (3) years of cancellation of his registration. The petitioner had sought voluntary cancellation of registration as his business of installation and servicing of electronic appliances was not encouraging. The application for rectification has also been rejected on 26.11.2025 on the ground that the petitioner is seeking reexamination of the entire subject matter which is not within the scope of Section 161 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner had also not appeared for hearing despite notice.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the matter is remanded, the petitioner would be able to properly defend himself before the Proper Officer. He has relied upon the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s. Katyal Industries v. State of UP and two others, 2024(2) TMI 1447 in support of his submissions.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax submits that in terms of Section 29(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, cancellation of registration does not wipe out any liability which may be detected for the period prior to the cancellation. The petitioner also cannot claim to have no obligation to check the portal where the impugned order was duly intimated. Even during the proceedings of rectification, he did not appear for hearing despite notice. He submitted that the petitioner may prefer an appeal against the impugned order with all grounds of law and on facts as may be available to him which may be considered by the appellate authority in accordance with law.

5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the materials placed on record.

6. We are of the considered view that cancellation of registration does not absolve the taxpayer of any existing liability which the petitioner may have to face. The order impugned deals with tax liability for the period 2018-19 on the ground that he had failed to declare correct input/output taxes in his returns which warranted a notice under Section 73 of the Act. A show cause notice was also served upon him along with DRC-01 under Rule 142(2)/142(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, through common portal calling for objections and also an option to pay the tax shown in the notice in DRC-03 by 23.02.2024. Despite a remainder notice, the taxpayer did not file any reply. Three/four reminders and personal hearing were also given. Therefore, the assessing authority proceeded to impose tax and penalty for the relevant period.

7. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the petitioner that the impugned order suffers from any infirmity which requires interference for reconsideration. However, the petitioner has a liberty to prefer an appeal taking all grounds of law and on facts. If he prefers such appeal within a period of two (2)

weeks with statutory pre-deposit, the appellate aut