☐ Has cancellation ground been identified? ☐ Have pending returns been filed? ☐ Has late fee under s. 47 been paid? ☐ Has REG-21 been filed within 30 days? ☐ For delayed application, has extension proviso been invoked? ☐ Has sufficient…
30
☐ Has cancellation ground been identified? ☐ Have pending returns been filed? ☐ Has late fee under s. 47 been paid? ☐ Has REG-21 been filed within 30 days? ☐ For delayed application, has extension proviso been invoked? ☐ Has sufficient…
Section 30 revocation compliance — checklist (19 items)
Section 30 revocation compliance — checklist (19 items)
☐ Has cancellation ground been identified?
☐ Have pending returns been filed?
☐ Has late fee under s. 47 been paid?
☐ Has REG-21 been filed within 30 days?
☐ For delayed application, has extension proviso been invoked?
☐ Has sufficient cause been documented?
☐ Has State / UT processing been monitored?
☐ Has hearing opportunity been afforded?
☐ Has comprehensive response been prepared?
☐ For rejection, has writ remedy been considered?
☐ Has Suguna Cutpiece framework been applied?
☐ Has Mafatlal procedural-fairness framework been applied?
☐ Has Mohit Minerals constitutional framework been applied?
☐ Has Whirlpool framework been invoked?
☐ Has Bharat Hi-Tech Builders natural-justice framework been observed?
☐ Has amnesty Notification framework been checked?
☐ Has Maneka Gandhi procedural-fairness been applied?
☐ Has Bharti Airtel substance-over-form discipline been applied?
☐ Has the file been reviewed for audit-defensibility?
Worked examples — five live scenarios
Example 1 — Non-filing cancellation revocation
Facts: Registration cancelled for 6-month non-filing. Taxpayer files pending returns + late fee. Files REG-21 within 30 days.
Analysis: Substantive cure (returns filed). Procedural compliance. Officer revokes per sub-s. (2). Standard restoration framework.
Result: Revocation granted. Registration restored.
Example 2 — Delayed application with extension
Facts: Taxpayer learns of cancellation 35 days after order service. Sufficient cause — officer's notice was sent to old address.
Analysis: Proviso (a) — extension up to 30 days by Additional / Joint Commissioner. Sufficient cause documented (address-communication issue). Total window — 60 days. Practitioner files extension request + REG-21.
Result: Extension framework operates.
Example 3 — Rejection on substantive grounds
Facts: Cancellation under s. 29(2)(e) for fraud. Taxpayer files REG-21 with substantive defence.
Analysis: Officer holds hearing. Considers fraud allegations + taxpayer's response. If fraud established, rejection. If not established, revocation. Practitioner defence — substantive merits + procedural-fairness rigour.
Result: Substantive framework. Outcome depends on facts.
Example 4 — Amnesty framework
Facts: Registration cancelled in 2019. Revocation window expired. Notification 03/2023-CT amnesty framework operative.
Analysis: Amnesty Notification provides retrospective revocation framework for FY 17-18 to 21-22 cancellations. Specific conditions, fees, timeline. Practitioner discipline — verify conditions; file amnesty application.
Result: Amnesty framework operative. Restoration possible.
Example 5 — Rejection with procedural-fairness breach
Facts: Officer rejected revocation without hearing. Practitioner challenges.
Analysis: Sub-s. (2) proviso — hearing mandatory. Procedural-fairness breach. Practitioner files writ — Whirlpool + Mafatlal + Suguna Cutpiece framework. Successful challenge — fresh hearing required.
Result: Procedural-fairness defence framework operative.
Planning and litigation strategy
Litigation defence
Cross-references