Allowed

M/s Velan Traders v. The Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC15 Sept 2025/32511/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns under Section 29(2) of the CGST Act. Relying on Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center, the Court ordered revival of registration contingent upon the petitioner filing belated returns, paying defaulted tax, interest, and applicable fees, with restrictions on ITC utilization.

What did the court decide?

Revival of GST registration subject to filing belated returns, payment of defaulted tax, interest, fine, and fee within 45 days, adhering to ITC restrictions.

M/s Velan Traders Vs The Assistant Commissioner — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P. No.32511 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 15.09.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

W.P. No.32511 of 2025 and

¶7

W.M.P. No.36436 of 2025

¶8

M/s.Velan Traders,

¶9

Represented by its proprietor Mrs.Chinnasamy Jothimani, No.146/3, Kaattur, Chennimalai, Erode, Tamil Nadu-638 051.

¶10

...Petitioner(s)

¶11

vs.

¶12

The Assistant Commissioner, Kangeyam Circle, Erode, Tamil Nadu.

¶13

...Respondent(s)

¶14

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Kangeyam Circle, Erode vide Reference No.ZA330319015128S dated 05.03.2019, quash the same and consequently restore the GST registration of the petitioner with immediate effect.

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Ms.S.Sowjanya

¶16

For Respondent(s) : Mr.V.Prasanth Kiran Government Advocate

¶17

ORDER

¶18

By consent of learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is taken up

¶19

for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶20

1/7

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

W.P. No.32511 of 2025

¶23

2. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of the

¶24

cancellation of the registration of the petitioner dated 05.03.2019 on the premise that the statutory returns has not been filed for a continuous period of more than six months in the financial year 2018-19, thereby invoking Section 29(2) of

¶25

CGST Act.

¶26

3. At the outset, it is submitted by both the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate for respondent that the issue stands covered by a series of judgments, commencing with the decision in Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Center Vs. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others , wherein, under identical circumstances, this Court has directed the

¶27

revocation of registration subject to conditions.

¶28

4. This Court has been consistently following the directions issued in Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Center's case . The relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:

¶29

“229. In the light of the above discussion, these Writ Petitions are allowed subject to the following conditions:

¶30

i. The petitioners are directed to file their returns for the period prior to

¶31

the cancellation of registration, if such returns have not been

¶32

2/7

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P. No.32511 of 2025

¶35

already filed, together with tax defaulted which has not been paid prior to cancellation along with interest for such belated payment of tax and fine and fee fixed for belated filing of returns for the defaulted period under the provisions of the Act, within a period of forty five (45) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if it has not been already paid.

¶36

ii. It is made clear that such payment of Tax, Interest, fine / fee and etc. shall not be allowed to be made or adjusted from and out of any Input Tax Credit which may be lying unutilized or unclaimed in the hands of these petitioners.

¶37

iii. If any Input Tax Credit has remained utilized, it shall not be utilised until it is scrutinized and approved by an appropriate or a competent officer of the Department.

¶38

iv. Only such approved Input Tax Credit shall be allowed for being utilized thereafter for discharging future tax liability under the Act and Rule.

¶39

v. The petitioners shall also pay GST and file the returns for the period subsequent to the cancellation of the registration by declaring the correct value of supplies and payment of GST shall also be in cash.

¶40

vi. If any Input Tax Credit was earned, it shall be allowed to be utilised only after scrutinising and approving by the respondents or any other competent authority.

¶41

vii.The respondents may also impose such restrictions / limitation on petitioners as may be warranted to ensure that there is no undue passing of Input Tax Credit pending such exercise and

¶42

3/7

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

W.P. No.32511 of 2025

¶45

to ensure that there is no violation or an attempt to do bill trading by taking advantage of this order.

¶46

viii.On payment of tax, penalty and uploading of returns, the registration shall stand revived forthwith.

¶47

ix. The respondents shall take suitable steps by instructing GST Network, New Delhi to make suitable changes in the architecture of the GST Web portal to allow these petitioners to file their returns and to pay the tax/penalty/fine.

¶48

x. The above exercise shall be carried out by the respondents within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶49

xi. No cost.

¶50

xii. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.”

¶51

5. In view thereof, the benefit extended by this Court vide its earlier order

¶52

in Suguna Cutpiece Centre's case cited supra, may be extended to the petitioner.

¶53

6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of on the above terms.

¶54

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶55

15.09.2025

¶56

Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes/ No Neutral Citation: Yes/No mka

¶57

4/7

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶59

W.P. No.32511 of 2025

¶60

To: The Assistant Commissioner, Kangeyam Circle, Erode, Tamil Nadu.

¶61

5/7

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶63

W.P. No.32511 of 2025

¶64

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

¶65

mka

¶66

W.P. No.32511 of 2025

¶67

15.09.2025

¶68

6/7

¶69

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶70

W.P. No.32511 of 2025

¶71

W.P.No.32511 of 2025 and

¶72

W.M.P.No.36436 of 2025

¶73

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

¶74

Today, the matter has been listed under the caption “for being mentioned” at the instance of the learned counsel for petitioner.

¶75

2. On a careful reading of the doubt raised by the learned counsel for petitioner, this Court found that no further clarification or correction is required in the order dated 15.09.2025.

24.10.2025

spp

7/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M/s Velan Traders v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Velan Traders v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

New India Super Market Vs Arunbabu.s M/a, Unknown

Tvl Ragul Industries Vs the State Tax Officer Inspection -5

Graced Retails Vs The State Tax Officer

Tvl S Rajendiran Vs Assistant Commissioner St Fac

M/S.Altspace Technologies Vs the Deputy State Tax OFFICER-1

M.M. Marketing Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer