Disposed

Murugesan Karan v. The Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC30 Oct 2025WP(MD)/30580/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST registration cancellation challenged by way of writ. Following the batch decision in Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Center, the court set aside the impugned cancellation and directed restoration of registration, conditional on the petitioner filing returns, paying tax, interest, fine and fee as per those conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned cancellation order set aside; GST registration to be restored subject to compliance with Suguna Cutpiece Center conditions; no costs.

Murugesan Karan Vs The Assistant Commissioner — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.30580 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 30.10.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P(MD)No.30580 of 2025

Murugesan Karan

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Assistant Commissioner, Pudukkottai – 1 Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Pudukkottai.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the respondent in Reference No ZA3312243204244 dated 31/12/2024 and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, and direct the respondents to revoke the cancellation of petitioners GSTN Registration No.33BFIPK4261F1ZO within such time as may be directed by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sudalai Muthu

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.J.K.Jeyaselan Government Advocate

¶14

1/6

¶15

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

¶16

W.P(MD)No.30580 of 2025

¶17

Heard both sides.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

2.The petitioner has challenged the impugned order cancelling GST registration of the petitioner.

¶20

3.The learned counsel on either side submit that the issue is squarely covered by decision rendered by this Court in the case of Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Center Vs. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others, in W.P.Nos.25048, 25877, 12738 of 2021 and etc.,

¶21

batch (decided on 31.01.2022), wherein this Court had ordered as follows:

¶22

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

¶23

i. The petitioners are directed to file their returns for the period prior to the cancellation of registration, if such returns have not been 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

¶24

2/6

¶25

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

¶26

W.P(MD)No.30580 of 2025

¶27

forty five (45) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if it has not been already paid.

¶28

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.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

3/6

¶35

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

¶36

W.P(MD)No.30580 of 2025

¶37

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

¶38

ix. The respondents shall take suitable steps by instructing GST Network, New Delhi to make and etc. batch 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.

¶39

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.

¶40

xi. No cost.

¶41

xii.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.”

¶42

4.Under these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and

¶43

the respondent is directed to restore the GST registration subject to the petitioner complying with the conditions imposed in Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Center ’s case (cited supra).

¶44

5.With the aforesaid observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶45

No costs.

¶46

30.10.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No MGA

¶47

4/6

¶48

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

¶49

W.P(MD)No.30580 of 2025

¶50

¶51

The Assistant Commissioner, Pudukkottai – 1 Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Pudukkottai.

¶52

5/6

¶53

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

¶54

W.P(MD)No.30580 of 2025

¶55

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶56

MGA

¶57

W.P(MD)No.30580 of 2025

¶58

30.10.2025

¶59

6/6

¶60

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

Murugesan Karan v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugesan Karan 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

S Muniasamy Vs The State Tax officer

M.v.Muthuramalingam, Vs The Inspector General of Registration / Chief Controlling Revenue Officer

Thangaswamy P Vs The State Tax Officer

Saravanan S Vs The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise

Dr Srinivasan Subbaraj Vs State Tax Officer

Rajamani Vs The Sub Registrar