The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of R K I Builders Private Limited v. The Superintendent of Central Taxes [WRIT PETITION NO: 32994/2025, order dated December 17, 2025] held that rejection of amendment application for GST registration (FORM GST REG-05) and suo motu cancellation of registration (FORM GST REG-19) ordered against the Petitioner are unsustainable where the Petitioner underwent Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), pursuant to which a new management was installed by NCLT orders and registration was restored.
Facts:
R K I Builders Private Limited, a Private Limited Company in Hyderabad (“the Petitioner”) was a registered person under the GST Act. The Petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled by order dated November 14, 2020 by the Superintendent of Central Taxes, Tirupati (“the Respondent”) on account of various infractions of the GST Act committed by the erstwhile management of the Petitioner.
Thereafter, the Petitioner underwent a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and as a result of the insolvency resolution process, by virtue of orders of the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad a new management was installed in place, and the new management commenced running the Petitioner company.
Upon the new management assuming charge, the Petitioner’s GST registration was restored by proceedings dated October 9, 2025, and thereafter filed an application to amend the registration certificate by substituting the old operational address with the new address from where the Petitioner was operating.
The Petitioner’s contention was that the Respondent is continuing to treat the Petitioner as if the old management is running the company and is unwilling to permit the Petitioner to operate. The Respondent had rejected the amendment application in FORM GST REG-05 without considering the Petitioner’s letter of objections dated November 3, 2025 submitted in reply to the notice in FORM GST REG-03. The Respondent also cancelled the registration by suo motu proceedings dated November 14, 2025 in FORM GST REG-19.
Aggrieved by rejection order dated November 13, 2025 rejecting amendment of registration without considering objections, and suo motu cancellation order and alleged to be without jurisdiction, in violation of natural justice (non-consideration of objections), and violating Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner approached the High Court.
Issue:
Whether rejection of GST registration amendment application (FORM GST REG-05) and suo motu cancellation of registration (FORM GST REG-19) are sustainable where the Petitioner underwent CIRP with new management installed by NCLT?
Held:
The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in WRIT PETITION NO: 32994/2025 held as under:
- Noted that the Petitioner was a registered person under the GST Act, and registration was cancelled by order dated November 14, 2020 on account of various infractions of the GST Act by the management of the Petitioner.
- Observed that, thereafter the Petitioner underwent a CIRP under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and as a result of the resolution process, by virtue of orders of the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad a new management was put in place and the new management is now running the Petitioner company.
- Noted that, when the new management took charge of the Petitioner company, the registration of the Petitioner was restored by proceedings dated October 09, 2025. Thereafter, an application was filed to amend the registration certificate by substituting the old address of the Petitioner with the new address of the Petitioner from where the Petitioner was operating.
- Observed that the Respondent by proceedings dated November 13, 2025 rejected the amendment application. Apart from the said rejection, the Respondent also cancelled the registration of the Petitioner by proceedings and it appears that the Respondent is still acting on the premise that the old management is in place and is operating the company.
- Held that, this view does not stand scrutiny inasmuch as the new management has been put in place by the NCLT in a properly constituted CIRP.
- Held that, in the circumstances, it would only be appropriate that the proceedings of the Respondent are set aside and a fresh opportunity is given to the Petitioner to seek amendment of the registration certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner earlier. Accordingly, allowed the Writ Petition.
Our Comments:
The Division Bench recognizes CIRP as a watershed triggering distinct entity treatment of corporate debtor and new management, severing continuity of liability for pre-insolvency infractions under GST registration. This aligns with CBIC Circular No. 134/04/2020-GST dated March 23, 2020 holding GST registration of entity undergoing CIRP should not be cancelled u/s. 29, and if already cancelled within revocation period, should be revoked by appropriate steps, for the reason that the IRP/RP becomes distinct person liable to take new registration within 30 days of appointment, ensuring operational continuity post-CIRP under Notification No. 11/2020-Central Tax dated March 21, 2020.
Relevant Provisions:
Notification No. 11/2020-Central Tax dated March 21, 2020
“In exercise of the powers conferred by section 148 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Government, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby notifies those registered persons(hereinafter referred to as the erstwhile registered person), who are corporate debtors under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), undergoing the corporate insolvency resolution process and the management of whose affairs are being undertaken by interim resolution professionals (IRP) or resolution professionals (RP), as the class of persons who shall follow the following special procedure, from the date of the appointment of the IRP/RP till the period they undergo the corporate insolvency resolution process, as mentioned below.
2. Registration.- The said class of persons shall, with effect from the date of appointment of IRP / RP, be treated as a distinct person of the corporate debtor, and shall be liable to take a new registration (hereinafter referred to as the new registration)in each of the States or Union territories where the corporate debtor was registered earlier, within thirty days of the appointment of the IRP/RP:
Provided that in cases where the IRP/RP has been appointed prior to the date of this notification, he shall take registration within thirty days from the commencement of this notification, with effect from date of his appointment as IRP/RP. “
CBIC Circular No. 134/04/2020-GST dated March 23, 2020
“Subject: Clarification in respect of issues under GST law for companies under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Reg.
….
2. Should the GST registration of corporate debtor be cancelled?
It is clarified that the GST registration of an entity for which CIRP has been initiated should not be cancelled under the provisions of section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017. The proper officer may, if need be, suspend the registration. In case the registration of an entity undergoing CIRP has already been cancelled and it is within the period of revocation of cancellation of registration, it is advised that such cancellation may be revoked by taking appropriate steps in this regard.”
CLICK HERE FOR OFFICIAL JUDGMENT COPY
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
