Disposed¶39

M/s. Sri Sreenivasa Marbles and Granites v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Writ Petition (Article 226) – GST registration restoration

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Mar 2026WP/5332/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST registration cancellation; restoration subject to conditional deposit of taxes; refusal of restoration for belated payment via endorsement DIN 3724122525499 dt. 24.12.2025; writ of mandamus under Article 226; substantial justice — procedural lapse overlooked; direction to consider restoration on deposit of dues within two weeks; GST Act, 2017; High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; W.P.No.5332 of 2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of: endorsement dated 24.12.2025 set aside; 2nd respondent directed to consider the petitioner's application for restoration provided the petitioner deposits all tax dues within two (02) weeks; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications closed. ¶39

M/s. Sri Sreenivasa Marbles and Granites Vs the… — GST and Indirect Tax | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the endorsement dated 24.12.2025, by which the 2nd respondent refused to accept the petitioner's application for restoration of its cancelled GST registration on account of delay in payment of taxes, ought to be set aside and the application considered.

¶32

Court's answer

With a view to ensure substantial justice, the Court overlooked the lacuna that the petitioner had chosen to file the present Writ Petition instead of applying for extension of time.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner was ready and willing to pay the taxes disclosed in the returns proposed to be filed, the Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's application, provided the petitioner deposits all tax dues within two (02) weeks.

¶39

Key takeaways

The endorsement passed by the 2nd respondent on 24.12.2025 is set aside, and there shall be no order as to costs.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Article 226) — GST registration restoration — Endorsement dated 24.12.2025 refusing restoration for delayed deposit of taxes set aside. The petitioner's GST registration had been cancelled on 04.09.2023; by order dated 10.01.2025 in W.P.No.790 of 2025 this Court directed restoration subject to deposit of taxes payable under returns within the time specified. The petitioner deposited belatedly, and the 2nd respondent refused the restoration application by endorsement dated 24.12.2025. Held (per R. Raghunandan Rao, J): to ensure substantial justice, the Court overlooked the absence of an application for extension of time; as the petitioner was ready and willing to pay the taxes disclosed in the returns proposed to be filed, the endorsement was set aside and the 2nd respondent directed to consider the application, provided all tax dues were deposited within two weeks. No costs.

¶1

[3529]

¶2

APHC010096242026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

SATURDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 5332/2026

¶10

Between:

¶11

M/S. SRI SREENIVASA MARBLES AND GRANITES, REGD. OFFICE AT PLOT NO. 12 VENKATADRI NAGAR, NANDYAL ROAD KUMOOL,ANDHRAPRADESH REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRINIVASA REDDY KADAM

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE (CT) DEPT., VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI522241

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, KUMOOL - II, KUMOOL ANDHRA PRADESH-518001

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the impugned Endorsement vide Ref DIN 3724122525499 Dt. 24.12.2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent as illegal, arbitrary.violative of GST Act, 2017 and Set Aside the same consequently direct the Respondent to receive the Petitioner's Application and Revoke the cancellation of GST Registration and to restore the same or to pass

¶18

¶19

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.5332 of 2026

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶21

1.PEDDIBHOTLA VENKATA SAI RAJESH

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶24

¶25

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.5332 of 2026

¶26

The Court made the following Order:

¶27

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

¶28

Heard Sri Peddibhotla Venkata Sai Rajesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents.

¶29

The registration of the petitioner was cancelled by way of proceedings, dated 04.09.2023. Aggrieved by the said order of cancellation, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.790 of 2025. This Court, by an order, dated 10.01.2025, had directed the respondent authorities to restore the registration of the petitioner, subject to conditions set out in the order, dated 10.01.2025.

¶30

One of the conditions, under the said order, was the deposit of taxes payable under returns that were to be filed by the petitioner. These taxes were to be paid in the time specified in the order.

¶31

The petitioner has approached the 2^nd respondent, belatedly, and had sought to deposit the necessary taxes beyond the dates specified in the order, dated 10.01.2025. The 2^nd respondent, in view of the delay in payment of taxes, had refused to accept the application of the petitioner for restoration of the cancellation of registration of the petitioner and passed an endorsement, dated 24.12.2025.

¶32

The petitioner, being aggrieved by this endorsement, dated 24.12.2025, has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition.

¶33

¶34

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.5332 of 2026

¶35

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that

¶36

the petitioner could not comply with the directions of this Court on account of financial stringencies and that the petitioner is now ready to deposit the said taxes.

¶37

Though, the proper course of action for the petitioner would be to file an application for extension of time, the petitioner has chosen to file the present Writ Petition.

¶38

With a view to ensure substantial justice, this Court is overlooking this lacuna in the Writ Petition.

¶39

As the petitioner is now ready and willing to pay necessary taxes, disclosed in the returns that are to be proposed to be filed, it would be appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition, with a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner, provided the petitioner deposits all the tax dues within a period of two (02) weeks from today. For this purpose, the endorsement, passed by the 2^nd respondent on 24.12.2025, is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶41

________________________

¶42

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶43

________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J

¶44

Date: 07.03.2026 MJA

¶45

¶46