HC Allows Fresh Revocation Plea: GST Registration Can Be Restored If Returns Filed Within Extended Window:

HC Allows Fresh Revocation Plea: GST Registration Can Be Restored If Returns Filed Within Extended Window Fullcart Supermarket LLP challenged the cancellation of its GST registration and the rejection of its revocation application. The registration was cancelled after the entity failed to file returns from March 2023 to September 2024. Although the petitioner applied for revocation on 11.12.2024, the request was rejected on 20.12.2024 (Ext.P3) for non-filing of pending returns, with only two months’ returns having been submitted by that point. The petitioner later filed all outstanding returns on 26.04.2025 and approached the High Court on 13.06.2025 seeking a direction to restore the registration and enable filing of returns for the period after October 2024. Issue Before HC: Whether a taxpayer who filed all pending returns within the statutorily extendable period under Rule 23(1) can be permitted to seek revocation of GST cancellation afresh despite an earlier rejection. HC Held: The Hon'ble High Court observed that the petitioner had submitted all pending returns by 26.04.2025, well within the maximum extendable period permitted under the first proviso to Rule 23(1). The Court noted that even in that order the authorities had indicated that the petitioner could apply for revocation within 90 days of cancellation after filing the returns. Since the writ petition itself was filed before expiry of the outer limit for seeking extension, and given that Rule 23 vests the Commissioner or competent officers with power to extend the period up to 180 additional days on sufficient cause, the Court found the extension was justified. The Court held that the statutory scheme clearly allows filing a fresh revocation application accompanied by a request for extension, especially where the taxpayer has completed return-filing within the permissibly extendable period. It further ruled that the period during which the writ petition remained pending must be excluded while computing the limitation. Thus, Ext.P3’s rejection did not preclude a fresh application. The Court directed the authorities to accept a new revocation application filed within two weeks, consider the extension request in light of the excluded period, and pass orders, subject to the petitioner complying with all other requirements under Rule 23(1) for restoration. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below