Delhi High Court Directs Firm To Pursue Appeal Against GST Registration Cancellation Rejection, Refuses Writ

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a firm's writ petition challenging the rejection of its application for cancellation of GST registration.

The authorities had alleged that the firm sought registration on the basis of documents whose authenticity could not be verified and had availed or passed Input Tax Credit (ITC) from non-existent firms.

The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that the dispute involved examination of the material and various allegations against the firm, making the statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, the appropriate remedy.

The case arose after Petitioner applied for cancellation of its GST registration. The application was rejected by the GST authorities, following proceedings in which the Department raised several concerns regarding the firm's registration and subsequent activities.

According to the reasons recorded in the rejection order, the authorities alleged that the firm had sought registration on the basis of documents whose authenticity could not be verified. They also alleged that the proprietor had furnished a wrong address and that the firm was non-existent at the address subsequently given as its communication address.

The authorities further alleged that the firm had availed excess ITC and had been engaged in availing or passing ITC from non-existent firms. The firm was also accused of failing to discharge its tax liability and of not responding to various show-cause notices and demand proceedings.

Petitioner however submitted that it was being unnecessarily harassed by repeated proceedings. It pointed out that show-cause notices issued earlier on three occasions for cancellation of its GST registration had subsequently been dropped.

The Department informed the Court that the firm's turnover had risen substantially over the preceding years—from approximately ₹9.92 crore in FY 2022-23 to ₹21.36 crore in FY 2023-24, ₹28 crore in FY 2024-25 and more than ₹45 crore in FY 2025-26.

The High Court noted that the impugned order was appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

“Undoubtedly, the jurisdiction of a Constitutional Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not ousted merely on account of availability of an alternative remedy. At the same time, the existence of such remedy is a relevant consideration in determining whether the discretionary writ jurisdiction should be exercised, particularly where adjudication of the dispute may require examination of disputed questions of fact and appreciation of the material placed on record,” it said.

Thus, taking note of the Department's concerns regarding allegedly non-existent and fictitious GST registrations, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition at this stage.

For Petitioner: Advocates Harpreet Singh, Suresh Chaudhary, Jatin Gaur, Utkarsh Kumar, Adarsh Mishra

For Respondent: Advocates Sumit K. Batra, Priyanka Jindal