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.8065 of 2026 DATED: 18.03.2026 Between:

M/s. Sri Devi Granites Industries, rep. by its Managing Partner, Mrs. Sridevi Nallamothu, H.No./Survey No.185/A1, Mudigonda Village, Main Road, Mudigonda Post, Mudigonda Mandal, Khammam, Telangana-507 158.

... Petitioner AND Deputy State Tax Officer, O/o. Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes), Khammam – II Circle, Warangal Division, Telangana & another ... Respondents

ORDER:

Heard Mr. K.P.Amarnath Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax appearing for the respondents.

2. The GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled for non-filing of returns for six months by impugned order dated 20.08.2023 after service of show cause notice dated 08.05.2023. There is an outer time limit for seeking revocation of the cancellation of registration before the competent authority as per the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. There is also an outer limit for preferring an appeal by an aggrieved tax payer as against such an order. There is also a reasonable time to invoke the writ jurisdiction for seeking relief by a person like this. However, in order to support the prayer herein, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been carrying on business for more than 20 years and was filing prompt returns and made VAT and GST compliances also. It was under a bona fide impression that its accountant is filing the returns promptly. It is also true that during COVID period, the business got completely affected. Therefore, on the grounds of non-filing of returns as per Section 39 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CGST Act’), the impugned proceedings were initiated by show cause notice dated 08.05.2023, but petitioner was not aware of the show cause notice and could not file its reply. It, however, is seriously trying to pursue its business with a capital of Rs.40 lakhs. If the existing GST registration is not restored, the petitioner will not be able to run its regular business and may suffer severe loss. It undertakes to discharge the balance late fee, if any, along with other applicable charges in compliance with the provisions of the CGST Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the order dated 10.03.2026 passed by this Court such as in W.P.No.7176 of 2026 where the cancellation of registration was made on 11.11.2024 on similar grounds for non-filing of returns for a consecutive period of six months. It is submitted that this Court had allowed liberty to the petitioner therein to approach the respondents with an application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration in a physical form with a direction upon him to take a decision in accordance with law. It is submitted that the ends of justice would be met if similar direction is issued in favour of the petitioner.

4. Learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax appearing for the respondents though does not dispute that this Court has in individual cases granted liberty even after expiry of the period of seeking revocation of cancellation of registration by approaching the competent authority in the facts and circumstances of the cases, but in the present case, the delay in approaching the writ Court is gross and unexplained. In a case like this, petitioner could not have carried out business without a proper GST registration. Other course may be open to it, if permissible in law and the fact.

5. Upon consideration of the rival submissions of parties in the facts and circumstances noted hereinabove, we are of the opinion that there is gross delay in approaching the writ Court which strikes at the root of the relief sought for by the petitioner. Apparently, upon cancellation of registration si