Heard Adv. Latheesh Sebastian and Adv. Thanuja Roshan for parties.

2. Writ petitioner is the appellant. The appellant challenged Exts.P8 and P9 and also, prayed for a direction for expeditious consideration of representation made by the appellant before the expiry of time stipulated in Ext.P7 notification. The appellant has stated a few circumstances both for invoking the writ jurisdiction and also that, as on date, the appellant is not completely shut out from availing the window opened through Ext.P7 notification dated 01.06.2021. He draws our attention to the following portion of Ext.P7 notification.

“Provided also that for the registered persons who failed to furnish the return in FORM GSTR-3B for the months/quarter of July, 2017 to April, 2021, by the due date but furnish the said return between the period from the 1^st day of June, 2021 to the 31st day of August, 2021, the total amount of late fee under section 47 of the said Act, shall stand waived which is in excess of five hundred rupees:”

3. According to Adv. Latheesh Sebastian, the scheme envisages more than one contingency including the non-filing of periodical returns by a registered dealer. The endeavour of appellant is to firstly, secure recall of cancellation of registration under CGST Act and avail the option provided by Ext.P7 notification.

4. We have taken note of the submissions.

5. The learned Single Judge was pursuaded, in our view rightly not to exercise his discretionary jurisdiction on the ground that the appellant had the remedy of appeal against the order impugned in the writ petition and the writ remedy is misconceived. Prima facie, we are of the view that both from the circumstances of the case and also the cogent reasons given by the learned Single Judge, the writ appeal does not merit interference with the jurisdiction exercised by the learned Single Judge. This observation by us, ought not to be understood as shutting out the other options available to the appellant in this behalf. The appellant, as noted above, intends to get the cancellation of registration revoked and also apply for settlement in terms of Ext.P7 notification. For the said purpose, to meet the ends of justice and in the fitness of the circumstances of this case, we observe as under:

a) The appellant is given liberty to avail the options open under Ext.P7 notification. The Standing Counsel appearing for respondents Nos.2 to 6 is instructed to immediately intimate respondents Nos.2 to 6 about the liberty granted by this Court immediately.

b) Appellant is given the liberty to file appeal along with the application to condone the delay against the order of the cancellation of registration before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority does the needful in accordance with law.

The writ appeal stands disposed of as indicated above. No order as to costs.