The GST Appellate Tribunal at Bengaluru set aside an order that refused to hear a scrap trader’s appeal despite a High Court direction, and remanded the cancellation dispute for decision on merits.

A taxpayer who applies under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017 for revocation of a cancelled registration does not thereby accept that the cancellation was right, and an appellate authority directed by a High Court to decide an appeal on merits cannot refuse to do so, the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Bengaluru has held [G.R. Enterprises v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, 2026-juristway.com-3436-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST].

The Bench of Prabhakaran P.M., Judicial Member, and Ravi Jesuraj S., Technical Member (State), who wrote the order, heard the appeal of a Hospet trader in iron, steel and plastic scrap.

On 20 May 2023 officers found the declared premises closed and dusty, and recorded neighbours saying the shop had not opened since 2018. A notice under Rule 21(a) was issued the same day and the registration was cancelled by an order of 14 Jun 2023. The trader sought revocation and pursued that route. In W.P. No. 108566 of 2025, decided on 25 Nov 2025, the Karnataka High Court directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits. The appellate authority instead rejected the fresh appeal at admission, saying the High Court had not permitted it and may have been misled, and that the trader had accepted the cancellation by seeking revocation.

The Tribunal held that a quasi-judicial authority “cannot sit in appeal over a judgment” of the High Court, nor refuse to act on it because it doubts the facts on which it rests. If the Revenue felt the Court was misled, its remedy lay before the Court.

Sections 30 and 107 serve different purposes, the Tribunal said. An appeal tests whether the cancellation was right when made; a revocation application asks the officer to restore the registration. Choosing revocation because it is quicker is not an admission. As the appeal was filed within the four weeks allowed by the High Court, delay was no bar.

The Tribunal also noted lapses in the trader’s own pleadings, including grounds that argued the Revenue’s case, and said the appellate authority may weigh such inaccuracies when assessing credibility.

The matter was remanded. The appellate authority must call for the officer’s records, share the inspection reports and other material at least fifteen days before the hearing, and pass a reasoned order within three months. The trader must file its documents within thirty days. Restoration of registration was not granted at this stage.

2026-juristway.com-3436-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST