George Kurian vs Superintendent Palakkad South Range, Central Tax & Central Excise, Central Goods & Services Tax Department, Palakkad, Pin 678001

T.R. Ravi, J

The petitioner has challenged Ext.P3 order whereby the appeal preferred against cancellation of registration has been rejected stating that the remedy of the petitioner is to seek revocation of the cancellation. The appellate authority also found that the appellant is no longer eligible to make an application for revocation of the cancelled GST registration since the period for approaching for the said remedy has already expired.

When the case is taken up today, the counsel for the petitioner placed before me the judgment in WP(C) No.19904/2022, which was rendered in similar circumstances. This Court after noting that the petitioner had filed the appeal within time and it is only a question of availing the wrong remedy, held that the period for filing an application for revocation has to be arrived at after deducting the period during which the petitioner had been before the wrong authority. I find that on the facts of this case, the directions issued by the learned Judge in WP(C) No.19904/2022 can be followed. This is also a case where the appeal had been filed in time and since it is a case where the petitioner could have invoked the remedy for revocation of the cancellation of registration, the petitioner can be relegated to the said remedy.

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and it is directed that if the petitioner files a fresh application for revocation within 7 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the same shall be treated as one filed within the time stipulated under the Statute and disposed of in accordance with law within four weeks thereafter.