Revocation of Suo Motu GST Cancellation Amid Disputed Tax Liability and Pending Appeal

A revocation application must normally be filed within 30 days from the date of service of the cancellation order, subject to statutory extensions presently available under the CGST Rules. Revocation under Section 30 focuses on restoration of registration upon compliance, not on adjudication of disputed demands. Hence, pendency of appeal or disputed/time-barred liability does not, by itself, bar revocation, provided statutory filings are made and admissible dues are discharged.

Legal Provision:
1. Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Revocation of Cancellation

“A registered person, whose registration is cancelled by the proper officer on his own motion, may apply to such officer for revocation of cancellation of registration within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed.”

2. Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 – Revocation Procedure

“A registered person may submit an application for revocation of cancellation of registration… within thirty days from the date of service of the order of cancellation of registration.”
(With provisos enabling extension of time by the jurisdictional authority as notified from time to time.)

3. Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act – Cancellation Ground

Registration may be cancelled where “a registered person has not furnished returns for a continuous period of six months.”

4. Section 107 – Appeal

Provides the statutory remedy to challenge disputed tax liability arising from returns or orders.

(Material language) “Any person aggrieved by any decision or order… may appeal within three months from the date of communication of such decision or order.”

Analysis:

The statutory framework clearly demarcates two distinct legal tracks:

1. Revocation of cancellation of registration (Section 30, Rule 23)

2. Adjudication of disputed tax liability (assessment/appeal under Section 107)

Revocation is restorative and administrative; appeal is adjudicatory and contentious.

Time limit and extensions

The general rule mandates filing within 30 days from service of the cancellation order. However, under successive amendments and notifications, graded extensions have been permitted by competent authorities (e.g., AC/JC and Commissioner). As of 2026, authorities may grant additional condonable periods on sufficient cause shown. Applicants should explicitly seek condonation where delay exists, explaining:

• portal glitches,

• COVID-era disruptions (where relevant),

• bona fide compliance effort.

Preconditions for revocation

Before filing REG-21 (online application):

• all pending returns must be filed;

• late fees and interest must be paid; and

• tax dues to the extent admitted must be discharged.

Where an additional liability arises from a belated return and is time-barred or disputed, the law does not compel payment of disputed sums as a precondition for revocation. Payment of admitted liability suffices; the dispute follows the appellate channel.

Effect of pending appeal or disputed liability

Section 30 does not link revocation to finality of tax liability. The proper officer’s remit is confined to:

• whether non-filing grounds have been cured; and

• whether conditions of Rule 23 have been fulfilled.

Therefore:

• pendency of appeal does not extinguish the officer’s power to revoke;

• disputed/time-barred tax liability is a matter for adjudication under Section 73/74 and appeal under Section 107;

• officer cannot convert revocation proceedings into coercive recovery of disputed dues.

Procedural nuances

• Cancellation is preceded by SCN under Form REG-17 and order in REG-19.

• Revocation application in REG-21 is decided by speaking order in REG-22.

• If rejected, the taxpayer may:

  • file appeal under Section 107, or

  • invoke writ jurisdiction where:

    • natural justice is violated,

    • portal prevented filing,

    • delay-condonation power not exercised though available,

    • business paralysis results from arbitrary refusal.

In my litigation practice before the Patna High Court, writ petitions in GST cancellation cases are entertained particularly where the authority has ignored condonation provisions, passed non-speaking orders, or insisted on payment of disputed demands as a precondition to revocation.

Interplay with time-barred liability

A return leading to an alleged time-barred liability does not defeat revocation. Limitation questions belong to assessment/appeal, not revocation. Officers must examine only:

• curative compliance, and

• eligibility within extended time limits.

Where liability is sub judice, revocation should not be stalled merely because demand is contested.

Case Law Precedents

• Patna High Court has consistently emphasized:

  • restoration of registration where returns are filed and dues are substantially complied with;

  • proportionality and business continuity as relevant considerations; and

  • invalidity of non-speaking rejection orders in revocation matters.

• Supreme Court and other High Courts have underscored:

  • adherence to natural justice,

  • non-mechanical cancellations,

  • preference for revival over economic death of business where compliance is achieved.

(Practitioners should rely on the latest reported Patna High Court rulings by citation at the time of filing to avoid inadvertent reliance on overruled or distinguished authority.)

Note for Bihar Filers

Before the Bihar jurisdiction, it is practical to annex:

• payment challans,

• REG-21 acknowledgment,

• detailed condonation request, and

• if appeal is pending, memo of appeal showing the dispute.

In Patna High Court writs, concise chronology and portal screenshots substantially strengthen maintainability where delay is portal-induced.

Note from the Author:
This response is for informational and educational purposes based on the GST law and judicial precedents available as of 2026. Practitioners are advised to verify the latest Notifications, Circulars, and judgments before filing or advising.

— Adv. Tabish Ahmad
Advocate, Patna High Court
LLM (Taxation), MBA (Finance)