the cluster of it services, residential, retail businesses that defines Manapakkam's commercial fabric — handled by a qualified, in-house team
GST Revocation for residential commercial mix supporting dlf sez businesses across the Manapakkam pocket near Mount-Poonamallee Road by qualified experts with a 15+ year, zero-penalty record. Call 9566-068-468.
REG-22 is the order of revocation — when the proper officer is satisfied that revocation is in order, REG-22 is passed within 30 days of REG-21 reinstating the GSTIN. Note: in some references the show-cause notice numbering differs; the rejection SCN is REG-23 and the rejection order REG-05 / REG-24 depending on context.
Fixed fees · Zero hidden charges · Call 9566-068-468 for a custom quote.
Swipe to see all plans
Prices exclude GST. For enterprise pricing, call 9566-068-468.
Expert GST Revocation in Manapakkam — qualified professionals, 15+ years experience, zero-penalty track record.
For Manapakkam clients approaching us within the statutory 90-day window from REG-19, REG-21 is filed straight without need for Commissioner extension. Median REG-22 turnaround on our portfolio is 14 working days.
All pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B for the cancellation period are filed with ARN before REG-21. The portal Rule 23(1) block is pre-emptively cleared so the application sails through without rejection.
Section 47 late fee (₹50/day, ₹20/day NIL) and Section 50 interest at 18% per annum on net cash liability are computed period-by-period and discharged through PMT-06 / DRC-03 before REG-21 — eliminating the most common rejection ground.
For Manapakkam cases between 90 and 180 days, we draft the Commissioner extension request with a detailed sufficient cause affidavit covering illness, family bereavement, accountant default or business disruption — converting time-barred cases into within-window cases.
Where the officer issues REG-23 minded to reject, our reply is drafted and filed within the 7-working-day window with supporting evidence and case-law citations. Personal hearing representation under Rule 23(3) is included at no extra cost.
For Manapakkam cases beyond 180 days, we file a writ petition before the Madras HC under Article 226 citing Tvl Suguna Cutpiece (W.P. 25048/2021) and Aap and Co. natural justice principles to direct the department to consider belated revocation.
Every GST Revocation engagement delivers measurable, guaranteed outcomes — expert professionals, on time, every time.
Why this matters here — Across Manapakkam, the business activity radiating outward from DLF IT Park and nearby commercial pockets. Practitioners note that with quick access via Manapakkam Bus Stop and feeder routes connecting Manapakkam to the rest of Chennai.
Share documents via WhatsApp to 9566-068-468. No office visit required for Manapakkam clients.
Miss any of these and the next consequence kicks in automatically.
Deadlines in this neighbourhood — Across Manapakkam, the cluster of it services, residential, retail businesses that defines Manapakkam's commercial fabric.
Deadline pressure points we see in Manapakkam: On the ground in Manapakkam, for Manapakkam IT-services firms managing export-LUT cycles alongside payroll and TDS.
Monthly or quarterly statement of outward supplies; defaulted GSTR-1 filings up to date of cancellation are a precondition for REG-21
Annual return for composition taxpayers under Section 10; revocation by a composition taxpayer requires every defaulted GSTR-4 to be filed first
Cash challan used to deposit tax, interest, late fee and penalty into the Electronic Cash Ledger; balance is then debited against return filings preceding REG-21
Form for voluntary payments of tax or interest discovered during arrears reconciliation; used where the cause of cancellation involves under-declared liability
Appeal against the REG-05 order rejecting revocation, filed under Section 107 before the First Appellate Authority with the prescribed pre-deposit
Electronic application by a taxpayer for revocation of suo motu cancellation under Section 29(2); requires furnishing of all pending returns and payment of dues before submission is accepted by the common portal
Order passed by the proper officer revoking the suo motu cancellation and restoring the GSTIN; communicated electronically through the common portal
Notice issued by the proper officer where prima facie grounds exist to reject the REG-21 revocation application — typically incomplete returns, unpaid arrears, or insufficient reasoning for delay
Every claim on this page can be traced back to a section or rule below.
Section 30 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 is the substantive provision empowering a registered person whose registration has been cancelled suo motu by the proper officer under Section 29(2) to seek restoration. Sub-section (1) of Section 30 provides that the application shall be filed in the prescribed manner within ninety days from the date of service of the cancellation order. The first proviso, as substituted by the Finance Act 2023, empowers the Commissioner or an officer authorised by him to extend the said period of ninety days by such further period not exceeding one hundred and eighty days. It is to be noted that revocation is available only against suo motu cancellation and not against voluntary cancellation under Section 29(1).
View sourceSub-rule (1) of Rule 23 of the CGST Rules prescribes Form GST REG-21 as the application for revocation, filed electronically on the common portal. The application must accompany payment of all dues, filing of all pending returns and payment of late fee and interest. Sub-rule (2) requires the proper officer, on being satisfied, to revoke the cancellation in Form REG-22 within thirty days. Sub-rule (3) prescribes Form REG-23 as the show-cause where the officer proposes to reject the revocation application, calling for reply in Form REG-24 within seven working days.
View sourceSection 50 levies interest at eighteen per cent per annum on tax paid after the due date prescribed under Section 39. Sub-section (1) of Section 50 applies to all delayed cash payments, while the proviso, inserted with retrospective effect from 1 July 2017, limits the interest computation to the net cash liability (excluding ITC-discharged portion). Interest is a non-negotiable component of the dues that must be paid before REG-21 can be entertained, and unlike late fee it is not capped by any notification.
View sourceNotification No. 03/2023 – Central Tax dated 31 March 2023 provided a special revocation amnesty for taxpayers whose registrations were cancelled on or before 31 December 2022 for non-filing of returns. The window allowed filing of REG-21 up to 30 June 2023 (extended later) subject to filing of all pending returns and payment of dues. It is to be noted that the amnesty operated as an exception to the ninety-day limitation under Section 30(1) and is no longer available, but it remains an interpretive guide for similar future amnesties.
View sourceSection 75 contains general procedural safeguards applicable across adjudicatory exercises under the CGST Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 75 mandates that an opportunity of personal hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing or where any adverse decision is contemplated. It is to be noted that this principle has been imported by Madras High Court rulings into the revocation context — rejection of REG-21 without a personal hearing on the REG-23 show-cause is amenable to challenge under Article 226.
View sourceNotification No. 23/2023 – Central Tax dated 17 July 2023 extended the revocation amnesty window originally provided by Notification 03/2023 from 30 June 2023 to 31 August 2023. The extension recognised the practical difficulty faced by small taxpayers in gathering bank statements, reconciling outward supplies, paying the accumulated dues and filing all pending returns within the original window. It is to be noted that no further extension was issued and the amnesty closed on 31 August 2023.
View sourceManapakkam (PIN 600125) falls under the Saidapet Division of the Chennai West, the jurisdiction that handles statutory matters for businesses at this PIN. Records we prepare for Manapakkam carry the geo-zone 600xx tag and coordinates 13.0186, 80.1717, which map each submission back to this locality. Businesses registered in Manapakkam share the Chennai West jurisdiction, and their statutory matters route through the same Saidapet Division each time. Because PIN 600125 sits inside the Chennai West jurisdiction, the handling office for Manapakkam stays consistent across years, which matters when filings or approvals span cycles.
Document pickup near Mount-Poonamallee Road is a same-hour errand for our Manapakkam engagements rather than the half-day a typical Chennai client expects. Manapakkam sustains a high flow of commerce for a residential commercial mix supporting dlf sez locality, and that flow is the raw material for the GST Revocation files we close here. Vendors and customers tied to the Manapakkam Bus Stop network show up across the invoice trail we reconcile for Manapakkam GST Revocation clients. Commercial activity in Manapakkam runs high, so GST Revocation volumes scale through peak months and we staff the Manapakkam desk accordingly.
The business mix in Manapakkam centres on residential, and that sector carries its own GST Revocation quirks we plan for in advance. GST Revocation for residential businesses in Manapakkam hinges on getting the sector's recurring entries right the first time. The residential character of Manapakkam commerce influences everything from invoice formats to the supporting documents a GST Revocation review needs. A residential operator in Manapakkam gets a GST Revocation workflow shaped by sector norms, not a one-size-fits-all template.
Turnaround for Manapakkam GST Revocation is deterministic — fixed fee, a scoped timeline, and a same-business-day acknowledgement once filed. Fixed-fee scoping means a Manapakkam business knows the GST Revocation cost up front, with no surprise additions mid-engagement. Document intake for Manapakkam clients runs over WhatsApp, so there is no office visit and no paper shuffle for a GST Revocation engagement. The qualified-review step on every Manapakkam GST Revocation file is where errors get caught before they reach the portal.
From the same Manapakkam team we also serve Porur and other nearby localities without re-onboarding clients. A client relocating between Manapakkam and Porur keeps the same GST Revocation file and the same team. Serving Manapakkam and Porur from one team keeps GST Revocation turnaround identical across the cluster. We treat Manapakkam and Porur as one catchment for GST Revocation, which keeps documentation and turnaround consistent.
Patterns we track for Manapakkam include retail documentation gaps, timing mismatches, and the questions the Saidapet Division tends to raise. Common patterns in the Saidapet Division give Manapakkam businesses an early-warning map we use to pre-empt GST Revocation issues. The GST Revocation mistakes we see most in Manapakkam are avoidable with disciplined intake, which our checklist enforces. Recurring gaps in Manapakkam retail records are the first thing our GST Revocation review closes out.
Shifting principal place of business to Manapakkam means updating jurisdiction to the Chennai West, and we manage the paperwork end-to-end. A startup setting up near DLF IT Park in Manapakkam gets a GST Revocation foundation built for the Saidapet Division from day one. New residential ventures in Manapakkam lean on us to stand up GST Revocation correctly before the first deadline rather than after a notice. Incorporating in Manapakkam comes with jurisdiction, registration and GST Revocation steps that we sequence so nothing stalls the launch.
REG-21 revocation of suo motu cancelled GSTIN under Section 30 of the CGST Act for Manapakkam businesses, filed within the 90/180 day statutory window with all pending returns cleared and tax dues paid.
A dedicated GST revocation consultant in Manapakkam handles REG-19 cancellation order review, pending returns clearance, late fee and interest computation, REG-23 SCN reply and Commissioner extension requests beyond 90 days.
On-time REG-21 application within 90 days of the cancellation order in Manapakkam avoids the need for High Court writ remedy. Where the window has lapsed, Notification 03/2023 amnesty conditions and Tvl Suguna Cutpiece principles are invoked.
For time-barred cases beyond the 180-day outer limit in Manapakkam, writ remedy under Article 226 is pursued before the Madras High Court citing Tvl Suguna Cutpiece (W.P. 25048/2021) and Aap and Co. natural justice precedents.
Section 47 of the CGST Act prescribes late fee of fifty rupees per day for non-nil returns and twenty rupees per day for nil returns, subject to a notified ceiling per return. CBIC amnesty notifications periodically cap the cumulative late fee.
Yes. The legal heir files REG-14 to update proprietor particulars, files REG-21 with the death certificate and legal heir certificate, and files ITC-02 to transfer accumulated input tax credit. Section 18(3) of the CGST Act read with Rule 41 governs the credit transfer.
Refund claims filed before cancellation continue on file but disbursement is typically held until GSTIN is restored. Fresh refund claims for excess cash ledger balance can be filed even during cancellation under the dedicated cash-ledger refund category which has no time limit.
Rule 23(2) prescribes thirty working days from the date of the application or from the date of REG-24 reply, where REG-23 has been issued. In practice complete applications without show cause are decided within four to six weeks.
Pending Section 73 or Section 74 proceedings do not by themselves bar revocation, but the proper officer may insist on stay of the demand under Section 107(7) or on payment of disputed tax before restoring the GSTIN. Integrated handling of both proceedings is advisable.
Section 29(2)(e) cancellation on fraudulent-registration grounds may be revoked where the underlying allegation is dropped or the registered person establishes that the alleged fraud was perpetrated by a third party such as an ex-employee or hacker. Documentary support is critical.
What Manapakkam clients want to know before signing: On the ground in Manapakkam, around the DLF IT Park catchment of Manapakkam.
Reading this guide locally — Across Manapakkam, in the residential commercial mix supporting dlf sez micro-market of Manapakkam.
Revocation as a procedural remedy operates within the federal architecture of Article 246A which empowers both Parliament and State Legislatures to make laws on GST and Article 279A which constitutes the GST Council as the recommending body. The 47th GST Council meeting at Chandigarh, the 48th meeting and the 49th meeting iteratively refined the procedural timelines around Section 30, recognising that the original ninety-day Section 30(1) window had proved too tight for many registered persons whose books were disrupted by the cancellation itself. The Council recommendations translated into Notification 03/2023-Central Tax and Notification 23/2023-Central Tax amnesty schemes, evidencing that the Section 30 architecture is responsive to operational realities rather than rigidly statutory. The State-side concurrent provision in each State GST Act mirrors Section 30 of the CGST Act, so revocation operates uniformly across CGST, SGST and IGST limbs of the same registered person's identity.
The pre-GST indirect-tax regime under State VAT Acts and the Central Excise Act 1944 had no unified revocation architecture comparable to Section 30. State VAT cancellations were typically followed by fresh registration if the dealer wished to continue, with the prior credit balance generally forfeited. Central Excise registration under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 was structurally tied to the manufacturing premises and rarely cancelled administratively. The Empowered Committee 2009 First Discussion Paper noted this gap as a friction point in the destination-based design and recommended a unified revocation pathway with input-credit-chain preservation. Section 30 in its present form is the direct legislative response to that recommendation, and the comparative jump from forfeiture-under-VAT to ledger-preservation-under-GST is conceptually significant for understanding why the revocation window matters so much to the credit-chain.
Revocation of cancellation of registration occupies a distinct conceptual space within the GST framework, separate from cancellation under Section 29 and separate from fresh registration under Section 25. The Empowered Committee 2009 First Discussion Paper had treated the registration register as the foundational ledger of the destination-based design; Section 30 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 operationalises a recovery pathway when that ledger entry is removed administratively without the underlying business having ceased. The OECD International VAT/GST Guidelines treat registration continuity as essential to credit-chain integrity, and revocation is the mechanism by which an inadvertent break in that chain is reversed without forcing the registered person to begin afresh. The conceptual distinction matters because revocation preserves the original Goods and Services Tax Identification Number, the input tax credit ledger balance accumulated up to the cancellation date, the turnover history, and the customer-side invoice linkages already captured in GSTR-2B at the recipient end. Fresh registration under Section 25 would lose all four of these continuity advantages, which is why Section 30 sits as a discrete remedial section within Chapter VI of the CGST Act.
Section 107(6) of the CGST Act requires a pre-deposit before the appeal can be entertained. The pre-deposit is the full amount of tax, interest, fine, fee and penalty arising from the impugned order that the appellant has admitted plus ten percent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute arising from the said order, subject to a cap. The pre-deposit operates as a procedural threshold rather than a substantive concession. In the context of revocation rejection under REG-05, the pre-deposit requirement is generally minimal because the underlying order is a procedural rejection of the revocation application rather than a tax-demand order. The Section 107(6) framework is nevertheless engaged and the pre-deposit calculation should be done before filing the appeal to avoid procedural delays.
The appellate review under Section 107 is on both law and facts. The Appellate Authority can confirm, modify, or annul the impugned order. In the context of revocation rejection, the appellate review typically focuses on whether the natural-justice requirements were met (was a REG-23 show cause notice issued, was a personal hearing offered, were the reasons for rejection recorded in writing in REG-05), and whether the Rule 23(1) precondition compliance was correctly evaluated. The Appellate Authority has discretion to remand the matter back to the proper officer for fresh consideration where the procedural record is incomplete. In practice, remand is the most common outcome where the underlying rejection was on procedural grounds rather than substantive non-compliance.
Beyond the first appeal under Section 107 lies the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 109 of the CGST Act read with subsequent amendments operationalising the Tribunal architecture. The Tribunal is the second appellate forum and reviews orders of the first Appellate Authority. As an alternate parallel route, where the rejection order suffers from a jurisdictional error or violates fundamental natural-justice principles, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the jurisdictional High Court is available. The writ route bypasses the appellate hierarchy but is generally invoked only where the appellate route is inadequate or where the question is of broader legal significance. The Section 107 first appeal remains the principal and most efficient remedy for ordinary revocation rejection orders.
Section 30(1) of the CGST Act, as originally enacted, provided that any registered person whose registration is cancelled by the proper officer on his own motion may apply to such officer for revocation of cancellation of the registration in the prescribed manner within thirty days reckoned from when the cancellation order is served. The provision underwent material amendment through the Finance Act 2023 which extended the base window from thirty days to ninety days subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed. The amendment was notified through Notification 22/2023-Central Tax and brought into force on a date appointed by the central government. The base window of ninety days therefore now represents the standard statutory entitlement, with the earlier thirty-day version surviving only in the historical record. Practical commentary still occasionally refers to the thirty-day window, which is no longer the operative position.
The first proviso to Section 30(1), inserted by the Finance Act 2020 with retrospective effect, empowered the Additional Commissioner or Joint Commissioner, as the case may be, to extend the said period of thirty days on sufficient cause being shown. The Finance Act 2023 amendment carried this proviso forward in modified form aligned with the new ninety-day base. The extension under the first proviso can be granted for a period not exceeding thirty days, taking the cumulative window to one hundred and twenty days counted from when REG-19 was served on the registered person. The proviso operates on a sufficient-cause threshold, which the appellate authorities have interpreted to include documented circumstances such as the registered person being out of country, hospitalisation of the proprietor or authorised signatory, natural disasters affecting business premises, and other comparable operational disruptions, examined on a case-specific basis.
The second proviso to Section 30(1), also a Finance Act 2020 insertion read with Finance Act 2023 alignment, empowered the Commissioner to further extend the period referred to in the first proviso on sufficient cause being shown. The Commissioner extension can be granted for a period not exceeding thirty days, taking the cumulative window from one hundred and twenty days under the first proviso to one hundred and fifty days. The two-tier extension architecture is significant: the first thirty-day extension is at the Joint Commissioner or Additional Commissioner level and the second thirty-day extension is at the Commissioner level, providing administrative gradation in the sufficient-cause review. Where the registered person genuinely needs more than the base ninety-day window, the procedural strategy is to file the extension application under the first proviso within the ninety-day window and chain it with a second-proviso application within the cumulative one-twenty-day window if needed.
The ninety-day Section 30(1) window is conceptually shorter than the three-month appellate limitation under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, but operationally they serve different remedial purposes. Section 30 is a return-filing-and-restoration route premised on the registered person accepting the underlying default and curing it; Section 107 is a merits-review route premised on contesting the cancellation itself. The comparative perspective matters when choosing the remedy: if the default is genuine and curable, Section 30 is the shorter and more reliable path; if the cancellation is itself contestable, for example where the consecutive-default count was wrongly computed or where the cancellation order is not a speaking order, Section 107 is the appropriate path even though it is procedurally longer. The two routes are not mutually exclusive; a registered person can pursue Section 30 first and reserve Section 107 as a fallback within its own limitation.
The ninety-day window under Section 30(1) runs from the day Form REG-19 is served on the registered person. Date of service is governed by Section 169 of the CGST Act which prescribes alternate modes including giving or tendering it directly, registered post or speed post with acknowledgement, communication through the email address provided at the time of registration, making it available on the common portal, publication in a newspaper, or affixing it in some conspicuous place. The most common mode for cancellation orders is portal-availability under Section 169(1)(d), with the date of service deemed to be the date on which the order is uploaded to the registered person's dashboard. The General Clauses Act 1897 principles on computation of period apply: the date of service is excluded from the count and the period ends at the close of the ninetieth day.
Operationally the ninety-day window must accommodate several discrete tasks before REG-21 can be filed. The Rule 23(1) precondition requires that all returns due for the cancellation default period are filed first along with payment of tax, interest, penalty and late fee. The reconstruction of GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B for the default window typically takes between fifteen and thirty days depending on book quality and the length of the default period. The interest computation under Section 50 and late fee computation under Section 47 require head-wise tabulation. Practical milestone planning therefore allocates the first forty-five days to returns reconstruction and payment, the next fifteen days to REG-21 drafting and filing, and the residual thirty days as buffer for any REG-23 show cause notice that may be issued. Compressing the timeline below this allocation risks missed disclosures that translate into REG-23 queries.
What Manapakkam clients usually ask next: On the ground in Manapakkam, for Manapakkam IT-services firms managing export-LUT cycles alongside payroll and TDS.
Section 29(2)(e) permits cancellation where the registered person no longer exists at the principal place of business or is found to be non-existent on field verification. Cure requires substantive proof of existence — utility bills, property tax receipts, trade licences, neighbour affidavits, fresh field-visit request. The Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Madras HC line supports substantive existence over single-visit findings.
Document Identification Number tagging on every notice issued under GST per CBIC Circular 122/41/2019. The REG-17, REG-19, REG-23 notices in the cancellation-revocation cascade all carry a DIN visible on the portal. Untagged communications can be treated as non est. Verifying DIN on the CBIC portal is a basic authentication step.
Section 169 of the CGST Act prescribes the valid modes of service of any notice, order, or communication — by hand, registered post, email at the registered address, portal upload to the registered taxpayer's dashboard, public notice in newspaper or affixing on PPOB. The 90-day Section 30 clock starts from the earliest of these valid modes of service, not necessarily the day the taxpayer actually opens the email.
A successful REG-22 revocation restores the GSTIN with effect from the original date of cancellation — no break in the ITC chain. Buyers who received supplies during the cancellation period can claim ITC on those invoices once the supplier files the missing GSTR-1s as part of the revocation cure. This continuity is the single biggest reason revocation is preferred over fresh REG-01.
Revocation is the statutory remedy under Section 30 of the CGST Act by which a registered person whose GSTIN was cancelled suo motu by the proper officer under Section 29(2) seeks restoration of the registration. It is procedurally distinct from withdrawal of a voluntary cancellation and from appeal under Section 107.
Suo motu cancellation is cancellation initiated by the proper officer on his own motion under Section 29(2) of the CGST Act, as distinguished from voluntary cancellation initiated by the taxpayer under Section 29(1). Only suo motu cancellation is amenable to revocation under Section 30.
REG-21 is the electronic form prescribed under Rule 23(1) for application for revocation of cancellation of registration. It is filed on the common portal after all pending returns are furnished and dues are paid, and is routed to the jurisdictional proper officer for disposal.
REG-22 is the order passed by the proper officer revoking a suo motu cancellation, restoring the GSTIN with effect from the date specified in the order. The order is communicated electronically and is the formal end-point of a successful revocation proceeding.
REG-23 is the show-cause notice issued by the proper officer proposing to reject a REG-21 revocation application — typically on grounds of unfiled returns, unpaid dues, or insufficient explanation for delay beyond the 90-day window. Reply lies in REG-24 within seven working days.
REG-24 is the taxpayer's reply to a REG-23 show-cause, carrying clarifications, documentary proof of return-filing, payment challans, and submissions on reasonable cause. It must be filed within seven working days of REG-23 to avoid REG-05 rejection.
The Section 30 window is the 90-day period commencing from the date of service of the cancellation order under Section 29(2) within which the revocation application in REG-21 must ordinarily be filed. The Commissioner can extend this by a further 180 days, giving an outer 270-day limit.
Commissioner extension refers to the discretionary power, under the first proviso to Section 30(1) as substituted by the Finance Act 2023, to extend the 90-day revocation window by a further period not exceeding 180 days. The extension is not automatic and requires a reasoned application showing sufficient cause.
Numerical examples showing tax + interest + penalty across common default scenarios.
How Manapakkam businesses typically avoid these: On the ground in Manapakkam, the business activity radiating outward from DLF IT Park and nearby commercial pockets; for Manapakkam IT-services firms managing export-LUT cycles alongside payroll and TDS.
How the local trade mix shapes this — Across Manapakkam, the business activity radiating outward from DLF IT Park and nearby commercial pockets.
Real client situations (names changed); illustrative of the kind of work we do.
Why these Manapakkam engagements look the way they do: On the ground in Manapakkam, the business activity radiating outward from DLF IT Park and nearby commercial pockets; for Manapakkam IT-services firms managing export-LUT cycles alongside payroll and TDS.
“Our GSTIN was cancelled suo motu after we missed 8 months of GSTR-3B during a family medical emergency. FilingPro filed all pending returns, computed late fee and interest, and submitted REG-21 within the 90-day window. REG-22 came through in 14 working days. Saved our business from re-registration nightmare.”
“Our cancellation order was 6 months old when we approached FilingPro — well past the 90-day window. They drafted a Commissioner extension request with sufficient cause affidavit and got it allowed. REG-21 then went through. Genuinely impressed with their procedural depth.”
“Received REG-23 SCN after our REG-21 application. FilingPro drafted the reply within the 7-working-day window with supporting documents and case-law citations. The officer passed REG-22 after personal hearing. Strong drafting work.”
“Our case was 14 months past the cancellation order — completely time-barred. FilingPro filed a Madras HC writ petition citing Tvl Suguna Cutpiece (W.P. 25048/2021). The court directed the department to consider revocation. Eventually got REG-22 after filing all pending returns. Litigation-grade work.”
“FilingPro leveraged Notification 03/2023 amnesty for our 2021 cancellation order — would have been impossible otherwise. All pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B filed, late fee discharged, REG-21 went through under amnesty conditions. Excellent timing and knowledge.”
“After REG-22 was passed, FilingPro also handled the buyer-side ITC restoration — coordinated with our customers, ensured invoices flowed to their GSTR-2B and ITC was claimed within Section 16(4) limit. End-to-end revocation handling, not just a form filing.”
Common questions from Manapakkam clients. Call 9566-068-468 for specific queries.
Across Manapakkam we look after firms on 14th Cross Street, 15th Cross Street, 16th Cross Street, Mount - Poonamallee - Avadi Road and Manapakkam Main Road as well as the 1st Main Road, Anuradha Paint Road, Mugalivakkam Main Road and Mugalivakkam Road corridors — local GST Revocation without the cross-city travel.
Professional GST Revocation in Manapakkam, Chennai. Call @ 9566-068-468. Offices at Maduravoyal, Nerkundram & Nolambur (upcoming). 15+ years experience, 4.9★ rated.
FilingPro Chennai — 15+ Years of Expert Tax & Business Consulting. Offices at Maduravoyal, Nerkundram & Nolambur (upcoming), Chennai. Call @ 9566-068-468. Disclaimer: Information on this page is for general guidance only and does not constitute legal, financial or tax advice. Consult a qualified professional for specific advice.