High Court of Madras
Eclipse Hospitality LLP (Earlier known as Viralminda Properties LLP) v. Superintendent of Central Excise GST Range I Adyar Division Chennai South
For assessee
High Court of Madras
WP NO. 25429 OF 2026
Where petitioner’s application for fresh registration was rejected solely for non- filing of returns up to cancellation date after statutory due date for doing so had expired and no extension notification was issued, petitioner could not be compelled to do an impossible act, making rejection unsustainable and authorities were directed to reconsider subject to fulfillment of remaining registration conditions
Section 25, read with section 37, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 9 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017
This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.
Members
The background, the issue before the court and the reasoning behind the decision are free for members — along with the professional discussion on this ruling.
Free to join. No card required.
Already a member? Sign in
Delhi High Court
Where biometric AADHAR-based authentication was not fully implemented despite ministerial statement, resulting in continued fraudulent registrations using stolen or frozen PAN/AADHAR, authorities nationwide were directed not to allow any GST registration without mandatory biometric-based AADHAR authentication to prevent revenue loss and harassment of innocent persons
Delhi High Court
Where writ petitions sought directions to authorities to curb rampant fake GST registrations using PAN and Aadhaar, and respondents had failed for nearly nine years to effectively address issue, with even deputed police officials unaware of problem, respondents were given a final opportunity to propose and implement an effective solution, failing which further appropriate orders would be passed
Kerala High Court
Rejection of GST registration application for failure to establish lawful possession of premises was upheld where lease documents did not establish tenancy in favour of applicant partnership firm and application was not accompanied by authorization from other lessees; petitioner was permitted to submit fresh application with necessary documents