Delhi High Court Dismisses Second Writ Petition Filed Against
GST Registration Cancellation for Repeated Litigation on the ground of laches
and maintainability
Introduction
GST registration is the
backbone of a business under India’s indirect tax regime. Without it, a
business cannot legally carry out taxable supplies, issue invoices, or avail
Input Tax Credit (ITC). Hence, cancellation of GST registration has
far-reaching consequences. However, challenges to cancellation must be raised
promptly through statutory remedies, failing which taxpayers may lose the
chance to revive their registration.
The Delhi High Court in Intuitive
Commerce Pvt. Ltd. vs. Chief Commissioner of CGST, West Delhi Commissionerate
& Anr. (W.P.(C) 12067/2025, decided on 12 August 2025) dealt with a
situation where the taxpayer filed two writ petitions against the same
cancellation order. The Court dismissed the second writ petition on the ground
of laches and maintainability, holding that once the earlier writ
petition was dismissed, the taxpayer could not re-agitate the same issue
through a fresh writ petition.
This article delves into
the detailed facts, arguments, findings, and implications of this ruling.
Case
Details
- Case Title:
Intuitive Commerce Pvt. Ltd. vs. Chief Commissioner of CGST, West Delhi
Commissionerate & Another
- Court:
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
- Case No.:
W.P.(C) 12067/2025
- Date of Order:
12 August 2025
- Impugned Order:
Order-in-Appeal dated 16 January 2025 by Commissioner of Central Tax
(Appeal II)
- Relevant Legal Provisions:
- Article 226 of the Constitution of
India
- Section 29 & 30 of the CGST Act,
2017 (Cancellation & Revocation of Registration)
- Section 107 of the CGST Act
(Appeals)
Summary of
the Case
The GST registration of
Intuitive Commerce Pvt. Ltd. was cancelled on 31 July 2023, following a
physical verification that found the principal place of business
non-operational. The cancellation was with retrospective effect from 1 July
2023.
The company challenged
the cancellation before the Appellate Authority, but its appeal was dismissed
on 16 January 2025. Instead of pursuing statutory remedies further, the
company filed a writ petition (W.P.(C) 2555/2025) before the Delhi High
Court in February 2025, challenging the cancellation order dated 31 July 2023.
The Court dismissed that petition on 28 February 2025 due to delay
and laches.
Subsequently, the company
filed a second writ petition (W.P.(C) 12067/2025) challenging the very
same cancellation, this time against the appellate order. The High Court
dismissed this petition too, holding that the earlier dismissal barred a second
petition on the same grounds.
Facts of
the Case
1. Business
Details
o The
petitioner, Intuitive Commerce Pvt. Ltd., had its registered office at 5th
Floor, 500, ITL Twin Tower, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi – 110034.
o At
some point, the petitioner shifted its premises but failed to update its GST
registration records.
2. Physical
Verification & SCN
o GST
officers conducted a physical verification at the registered address and found
the premises non-operational.
o Based
on this, a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 27 June 2023 was issued
proposing cancellation of registration.
3. Cancellation
of Registration (31 July 2023)
o The
registration was cancelled retrospectively from 1 July 2023.
4. First
Writ Petition (W.P.(C) 2555/2025)
o The
petitioner filed a writ in February 2025, challenging the cancellation
order dated 31 July 2023.
o On
28 February 2025, the High Court dismissed it, citing delay (the
cancellation had taken place in July 2023).
5. Appellate
Proceedings
o Meanwhile,
the petitioner had also filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).
o The
appeal was dismissed on 16 January 2025.
6. Second
Writ Petition (W.P.(C) 12067/2025)
o The
petitioner again approached the High Court, now challenging the appellate order
dated 16 January 2025.
o This
writ petition was filed with a delay of 9 days, which the Court
condoned.
Submissions
by the Petitioner
The petitioner argued:
- Improper Cancellation
- The cancellation was based on
physical verification at an address where the company was no longer
operating, but failure to update records was a mere procedural lapse.
- The company was carrying on genuine
business operations elsewhere.
- Violation of Natural Justice
- The cancellation and subsequent
appellate orders were passed without proper consideration of documents
showing genuine business activity.
- Relief Sought
- Quashing of retrospective
cancellation order.
- Remand of the matter to the First
Appellate Authority with directions to hear the petitioner afresh and
consider evidence.
Defence by
the Respondents
The Department,
represented by the Standing Counsel, raised preliminary objections:
- Maintainability
- The petitioner had already filed W.P.(C)
2555/2025, which was dismissed on 28 February 2025. That dismissal
order had not been challenged further.
- Filing a second writ petition on the
same grounds was barred.
- Delay and Laches
- The petitioner approached the court
almost 18 months after cancellation of registration, which showed
negligence.
- Validity of Cancellation
- Physical verification had shown the
premises to be non-functional, justifying cancellation under Section 29
of the CGST Act.
Observations
of the Court
The Bench made the
following key observations:
1. Earlier
Writ Petition
o The
first writ petition (W.P.(C) 2555/2025) had already challenged the cancellation
order dated 31 July 2023.
o That
petition was dismissed on 28 February 2025 due to laches, and the petitioner
had accepted that order.
2. Effect
of Dismissal
o Once
the earlier writ was dismissed and not appealed, the issue attained finality.
o A
second writ petition on the same grounds was not maintainable.
3. Appellate
Order Already Considered
o By
the time the first writ petition was filed, the appellate order dated 16
January 2025 was already in existence and even annexed in the earlier petition.
o Hence,
the petitioner’s claim that the present writ was different (as it challenged
the appellate order) was rejected.
Judgment of
the Court
- The Delhi High Court dismissed W.P.(C)
12067/2025.
- Held that filing of a second writ
petition on the same cause of action was barred and not maintainable.
- Left open the option for the
petitioner to pursue other remedies in accordance with law (such as appeal
before higher forums, if permissible).
Conclusion
The ruling in Intuitive
Commerce Pvt. Ltd. vs. Chief Commissioner of CGST serves as a cautionary
tale for taxpayers. While courts have been liberal in cases of procedural
lapses leading to cancellation, they are equally strict on procedural
discipline in litigation.
Key Takeaways:
1. Prompt
Action Required
o Challenges
to cancellation of registration must be raised without delay. Delay and laches
can defeat even meritorious cases.
2. No
Second Bite of the Cherry
o Once
a writ petition is dismissed, taxpayers cannot file another writ on the same
cause of action. The principle of finality of litigation applies
strictly.
3. Update
Business Records
o Failure
to update GST registration when shifting premises can lead to cancellation.
Taxpayers must promptly file amendments to avoid unnecessary disputes.
4. Strategic
Use of Remedies
o Instead
of filing repeated writs, taxpayers should exhaust appellate remedies under
Section 107 of the CGST Act or challenge earlier dismissal orders in appeal.
This case underlines the
fact that litigation strategy is as important as substantive defence.
While courts protect taxpayers from arbitrary cancellations, they will not
entertain repeated or delayed petitions. Businesses must therefore act
promptly, maintain updated records, and use the right legal remedies at the
right stage.
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
