Abdulrehim.T.K vs State Tax Officer
2026 Latest Caselaw 2258 Ker

Kerala High Court

Abdulrehim.T.K vs State Tax Officer on 25 March, 2026

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

                                                             2026:KER:26240
WA NO. 1941 OF 2025                    1



                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                      PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

                                           &

                      THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

       WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1948

                                WA NO. 1941 OF 2025

           JUDGMENT DATED 26.06.2025 IN WP(C) NO.23581 OF 2025 OF HIGH

                                  COURT OF KERALA

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

                ABDULREHIM.T.K.
                AGED 46 YEARS
                PROPRIETOR, M/S. TKM TRADERS 2/80, TRIPPANACHI,
                MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673641


                BY ADVS.
                SMT.K.KRISHNA
                SHRI.ACHYUTH MENON
                SHRI.NIRMAL KRISHNAN




RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:

       1        STATE TAX OFFICER,
                STATE GOODS & SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, TAXPAYER
                SERVICES CIRCLE, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673638

       2        JOINT COMMISSIONER,
                TAXPAYER SERVICES CIRCLE, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
                DEPARTMENT B2 BLOCK CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM, PIN -
                676505
                                                      2026:KER:26240
WA NO. 1941 OF 2025                 2



                SMT THUSHARA JAMES, SR GP


       THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.03.2026,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                                    2026:KER:26240
WA NO. 1941 OF 2025                      3




                                             JUDGMENT

Devan Ramachandran, J

The appellant calls into question the judgment of the learned

Single Judge of this Court dated 26.06.2025 in W.P.(C) No.23581 of 2025.

2. As per the presented facts, the appellant was a registered

dealer; but, according to him, he closed down his business in May, 2023,

for want of business and financial resources. He admits that he was

issued with Ext.P2 notice on 07.08.2023, which was followed by Ext.P3

order cancelling his registration under Section 29(c)(2) of the GST Act

('Act' for short) on 11.06.2024; but asserts that both these were not

known to him, since he had already closed his business by then. He

explains that he did not apply for revocation of the cancellation of his

Registration under Section 30 of the Act because, he did not have money

to file the returns; which he did on 22.4.2025, after paying the tax until

August, 2023. He adds that, there upon, he preferred Ext.P9 application,

for revocation of cancellation of his registration; but which was dismissed

through Ext.P10 by the 2nd respondent - Joint Commissioner, saying that

the same is hit by the rigour of limitation under Rule 23 of the Central

Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 ("Rules" for short).

3. Smt.K.Krishna - learned counsel appearing for the appellant,

argued that the learned Single Judge ought not have dismissed the writ 2026:KER:26240

petition because, her client has filed the returns, as also tendered the tax

and penalty, as required under the second proviso to Rule 23(1) of the

'Rules.' She argued that, in such circumstances, the Joint Commissioner

ought to have allowed Ext.P9 application, rather than have dismissed it.

She prayed that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge be,

therefore, set aside.

4. Smt.Thushara James - learned Senior Government Pleader,

however, refuted the afore submissions, saying that, as per Rule 23 of the

'Rules', the Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner - as the case may be,

can exercise jurisdiction only if the application had been filed within an

outer limit of 270 days from Ext.P3 order. She contended that, when the

appellant himself admits that he had made the application after 654 days,

the Joint Commissioner could have done nothing more than to have

rejected it for the resason of limitation, as he has done through Ext.P10.

5. Smt.Thushara James then argued that, Ext.P3 order is a valid

one, since it was issued after Ext.P2 notice had been given to the

petitioner; and maintained that the service of both through the Common

Portal under Section 169 of the 'Act', is legally sufficient. She asserted

that, in such circumstances, the contentions of the appellant are only an

after thought, particularly when he can apply for fresh registration, if he is

so interested.

2026:KER:26240

6. We have examined the judgment of the learned Single Judge;

and notice that it has been concluded therein that, it is only on account of

the omission and fault of the appellant, that he has come to the situation

that he finds himself in.

7. We find favour of this because, admittedly, Ext.P3 order was

issued on 11.06.2024 and uploaded on the Common Portal, which the

appellant admits to have not accessed or verified. His explanation is that

his business was closed in May, 2023 on account of financial crisis; and

therefore, that he was neither aware of Ext.P3, nor did he make an

application under Section 30 of the 'Act' to have the cancellation of the

registration revoked. He admits that, once he garnered enough financial

resources, he filed returns on 22.04.2025; and then to have made Ext.P9

application, invoking Section 30 of the Act, by which time, more than 650

days had elapsed. This has been rejected by the Joint Commissioner

through Ext.P10, holding that he cannot condone delay of more than 270

days.

8. We cannot find fault with Ext.P10 because, the Joint

Commissioner could have done nothing more - as has been argued

correctly by Smt.Thushara James - when the application was filed after

654 days. The maximum delay that he could have condoned was 90+180

days, as available in Rule 23 of the 'Rules'; and beyond that it was 2026:KER:26240

statutorily impermissible for him to have accepted. For this singular

reason, Ext.P10 cannot be found to be in error.

9. Coming to Ext.P3, the appellant's contention is that the said

order is also vitiated because, Ext.P2 notice was not issued to him in its

proper format. This argument, is undoubtedly one in brinkmanship, since

the appellant admits unequicaocally that he had neither seen Ext.P2, nor

Ext.P3; and explains this saying that he did not access the Common Portal

because of his financial crisis.

10. To re-iterate, and as rightly found by the learned Single

Judge, the misery that the appellant finds himself in, is only on account of

his own actions, for which he cannot blame any one else.

11. At this time Smt.K.Krishna - learned counsel for the appellant

contended that the order of cancellation of registration, namely Ext.P3,

ought to have communicated to her client physically, rather than being

uploaded in the Common Portal. She cited the judgment of the Hon'ble

High Court of Uttarakhand in Raj Shekhar Pandey v. State Tax Officer

{[2026] 183 taxmann.com 505 (Uttarakhand)} in substantiation.

12. We are afraid that we cannot find favour with the afore

argument of Smt.Krishna for the specific reason that there is not even a

whispering mention in the pleadings, or in the contentions, that the

appellant could not access the Common Portal on account of the 2026:KER:26240

cancellation of his registration. In fact, smt.Thushara James asserts that,

notwithstanding the cancellation of registration, every dealer can access

the portal with their credentials at any point of time qua all causes and

obligations until such cancellation.

13. That apart, the cancellation of registration of the appellant

was ordered solely on account of the admitted fact that the returns had

not been filed by the appellant for the relevant period; and this expressly

is conceded by him, when he himself says that he filed the returns only in

the year 2025,since he had no financial capacity to do so until then.

14. Obviously, when the appellant refused to access the Portal

and adopted a careless attitude with regard to his obligations as a

registered dealer, we cannot find the non-service of the notice on him

through the physical format to be fatal.

15. Moreover, a learned Division Bench of this Court, in W.A

No.938 of 2024, has rendered it ineluctable that, for the purpose of

service of processes and other communications, the compliance of Section

169 of the Act would be wholly sufficient. The observations of the learned

Division Bench is extracted below, for the purpose of ease of reading:-

"A reading of Section 169 of the Act makes it abundantly clear that any decision, order, summons, notice or other communication under the Act or Rules may be served on the assessee, inter alia, by making it available on the common portal. We are of the view that this statutory provision has to be read along with the 2026:KER:26240

provisions of Section 146, and when so read, it would mean that once a common portal is notified for the purposes of the Act, then any of the actions such as registration, payment of tax, furnishing of returns, etc., as also the communication of notices, orders, etc., as provided for under the statute can be effected through the notified portal. We have also been shown a copy of the notification amending the earlier notification issued under Section 146 of the CGST Act so as to make it abundantly clear that the notification of the common portal can also be, inter alia, for all functions provided under the CGST Rules, 2017. The said amendment has also been given retrospective effect from 22.06.2017."

In the above circumstances, we see no reason to intervene; and

consequentially, this appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

Sd/-

BASANT BALAJI JUDGE Sru