Revocation of GST Registration Cancellation – Delhi High Court
Orders Restoration Subject to Filing of All Pending Returns with Penalty
Introduction
The cancellation of GST
registration has severe consequences for any business. Without an active GSTIN,
an entity cannot legally make taxable supplies, issue tax invoices, or claim
input tax credit. However, the law provides an avenue for taxpayers to seek revocation
of cancellation under Section 30 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act,
2017 (CGST Act).
The Delhi High Court in Infigon
Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vs. Superintendent, CGST Delhi West Range 134 & Anr.
(W.P.(C) 10454/2025, decided on 5 August 2025) examined whether cancellation
for non-filing of returns could be set aside when the taxpayer expressed
willingness to comply.
The Court restored the
GST registration of the petitioner, subject to filing of pending returns and
payment of applicable dues within eight weeks.
Case
Details
- Case Title:
Infigon Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vs. Superintendent Central Goods and
Services Tax, Delhi West Range 134 & Another
- Court:
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
- Case No.:
W.P.(C) 10454/2025 & CM APPL. 43407/2025
- Date of Order:
5 August 2025
- Impugned Orders:
- Cancellation of GST Registration
dated 20 March 2025 (effective from 1 July 2024)
- Rejection of Revocation Application
dated 3 July 2025
- Relevant Provisions:
- Section 29, Section 30 and Section
39 of CGST Act, 2017
- Rule 21A(2A) and Rule 22 of CGST
Rules, 2017
Summary of
the Case
The GST registration of
Infigon Ventures Pvt. Ltd. was cancelled w.e.f. 1 July 2024 for non-filing of
returns. Its revocation application was rejected on 3 July 2025.
The petitioner explained
that disputes relating to oppression and mismanagement between directors
were pending before the NCLT, Calcutta. A receiver was appointed, resulting in
management difficulties and failure to file returns.
Before the High Court,
the petitioner expressed willingness to file all pending returns and pay
penalties under Section 39 of the CGST Act. Relying on the earlier Delhi High
Court decision in M.S. Rainbow Products vs. Commissioner of CGST, the
petitioner sought restoration of registration.
The Court accepted the
plea, set aside the cancellation, and directed that the registration be
restored within one week, provided the petitioner files returns and pays dues
within eight weeks.
Facts of
the Case
1. Corporate
Dispute
o In
2024, internal disputes among directors led to proceedings for oppression
and mismanagement before the NCLT, Calcutta.
o During
this period, a receiver was appointed to manage affairs of the company.
2. Failure
to File Returns
o Due
to management issues, Infigon Ventures failed to file GST returns from July
2024 onwards.
o Under
Rule 22(1) and Rule 21A(2A) of the CGST Rules, non-filing of returns is a
ground for cancellation.
3. Cancellation
Order (20 March 2025)
o GST
registration was cancelled w.e.f. 1 July 2024.
4. Revocation
Application
o The
petitioner applied for revocation of cancellation.
o The
application was rejected on 3 July 2025.
5. Writ
Petition
o Aggrieved,
the petitioner approached the Delhi High Court challenging both orders.
Submissions
by the Petitioner
Counsel for Infigon
Ventures argued:
- Reason for Non-Compliance
- Failure to file returns was due to
pending NCLT disputes and appointment of a receiver.
- The lapse was not intentional.
- Willingness to Comply
- The company now wished to continue
business and keep registration alive.
- It was ready to file all pending
returns and pay taxes, penalties, and late fees.
- Reliance on Precedent
- Cited M.S. Rainbow Products v.
Commissioner of CGST (W.P.(C) 8964/2024), where registration was
restored under similar circumstances.
- Relief Sought
- Setting aside of cancellation order
(20.03.2025) and rejection order (03.07.2025).
- Restoration of GST registration.
Defence by
the Respondents
The Department, through
its counsel, submitted:
- Justified Cancellation
- Cancellation was due to non-filing
of returns, a valid ground under Rule 22(1).
- No Other Proceedings Pending
- Short affidavit showed no other
investigations or notices were pending against the petitioner.
- Conditional Restoration Acceptable
- If the Court was inclined to restore
registration, it should be subject to filing of all pending returns and
payment of dues.
Observations
of the Court
The Bench made the
following important observations:
1. Grounds
for Cancellation
o The
sole ground for cancellation was non-filing of returns since July 2024.
o No
fraud, suppression, or bogus ITC was alleged.
2. Opportunity
for Compliance
o The
petitioner expressed genuine willingness to comply by filing returns and paying
penalties.
3. Earlier
Precedent
o The
Court considered the ruling in M.S. Rainbow Products and found the
present case similar.
4. Balance
of Interests
o Restoring
registration with strict compliance conditions would balance the interests of
revenue and the taxpayer.
Judgment of
the Court
The Delhi High Court
held:
- The cancellation order dated 20.03.2025
and rejection order dated 03.07.2025 were set aside.
- GST registration of Infigon Ventures
Pvt. Ltd. was directed to be restored to its original number within one
week.
- Restoration was made subject to the
condition that the petitioner shall file all pending returns and pay
requisite taxes, penalties, and fines within eight weeks.
- Access to the GST portal to be
provided within one week to enable compliance.
- Writ petition was disposed of
accordingly.
Conclusion
The judgment in Infigon
Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vs. Superintendent, CGST Delhi West reiterates the
liberal approach of courts in cases where cancellation of registration is due
to procedural non-compliance like non-filing of returns, rather than
fraud.
Key takeaways for
businesses:
1. Restoration
Possible
o Courts
are inclined to restore registration where taxpayers show bona fide intent to
comply.
2. Compliance
Obligations
o Restoration
is conditional — taxpayers must file all pending returns and pay dues within
the stipulated time.
3. Corporate
Disputes Not a Defence
o Internal
disputes cannot absolve companies from GST compliance. However, courts may
grant relief if intent to comply is demonstrated.
4. Reliance
on Precedents
o Judgments
like M.S. Rainbow Products and Infigon Ventures provide relief in
genuine hardship cases.
This case is another step
in balancing revenue protection with business continuity under GST. It
sends a clear message: while GST compliance is mandatory, courts will intervene
to protect bona fide businesses from harsh consequences of cancellation,
provided they promptly rectify defaults.
Disclaimer: All the Information is based on the notification, circular advisory and order issued by the Govt. authority and judgement delivered by the court or the authority information is strictly for educational purposes and on the basis of our best understanding of laws & not binding on anyone.
Press On Click Here To Download Order File
Click here
