GST Revocation delivery for industrial and engineering firms across Padi — and a zero-penalty filing record
GST Revocation for industrial businesses in Padi near Padi Flyover with on-time portal submission and full statutory reconciliation. 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 Padi — qualified professionals, 15+ years experience, zero-penalty track record.
All cancellation circumstances, default periods, financial distress details and revocation working papers are stored under access-controlled channels. Padi clients' sensitive default history is never shared with third parties.
For Padi 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 Padi 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.
Every GST Revocation engagement delivers measurable, guaranteed outcomes — expert professionals, on time, every time.
Why this matters here — Padi businesses operate where the business activity radiating outward from Padi Flyover and nearby commercial pockets, and with quick access via Padi Pudunagar Bus Stop and feeder routes connecting Padi to the rest of Chennai.
Share documents via WhatsApp to 9566-068-468. No office visit required for Padi clients.
Miss any of these and the next consequence kicks in automatically.
Deadlines in this neighbourhood — Padi businesses operate where the cluster of industrial, engineering, residential businesses that defines Padi's commercial fabric.
Deadline pressure points we see in Padi: Closer to Padi, for Padi units balancing production cycles with monthly GST and quarterly TDS compliance.
Taxpayer's reply to REG-23 carrying clarifications, documentary proof of return-filing, payment challans, and submissions on reasonable cause for delay
Order of the proper officer rejecting the REG-21 revocation application after considering REG-24 reply or where no reply is received within the prescribed time
Cancellation order under Section 29(2) which is the order against which revocation under Section 30 is sought; the date of its communication starts the 90-day Section 30 clock
Show-cause notice preceding suo motu cancellation — addressing this at the REG-18 stage pre-empts the need for later revocation under Section 30
Taxpayer's reply to the REG-17 show-cause; filing of all defaulted returns during this window can lead to REG-20 dropping of proceedings
Order dropping cancellation proceedings where the REG-18 reply is satisfactory — typically because all pending returns have been filed with dues paid
Summary monthly return capturing output tax, ITC availed, and net tax paid; every defaulted GSTR-3B for the period up to cancellation must be filed before REG-21 can be entertained
Monthly or quarterly statement of outward supplies; defaulted GSTR-1 filings up to date of cancellation are a precondition for REG-21
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 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 sourceRule 21 of the CGST Rules enumerates twelve specific contraventions that render a registration liable to cancellation under Section 29(2)(a). These include not conducting business from the declared place, issuing invoices without supply, violating Section 171 anti-profiteering, violating Rule 86B (1% cash payment rule), and availing ITC in contravention of Section 16. Revocation applications against such cancellations require granular factual rebuttal of the specific Rule 21 ground invoked in the REG-17 show-cause.
View sourceSection 29 is the gateway provision because revocation under Section 30 lies only against an order passed under Section 29(2). Sub-section (2) of Section 29 lists the suo motu grounds — contravention of prescribed provisions, non-filing of returns for the prescribed period, voluntary registration holder not commencing business within six months, registration obtained by fraud or wilful misstatement, or violation of Section 171 anti-profiteering. It is to be noted that the proper officer must afford an opportunity of being heard under the proviso before passing the cancellation order, failing which the order is itself amenable to challenge before revocation is even invoked.
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 sourceRecords we prepare for Padi carry the geo-zone 600xx tag and coordinates 13.1031, 80.1924, which map each submission back to this locality. We keep a cycle-by-cycle record of how the Ambattur Division of the Chennai North handles Padi filings and approvals. Approvals, acknowledgements and queries for Padi businesses tie back to the Ambattur Division, so our GST Revocation cadence accounts for how that office works. Because PIN 600050 sits inside the Chennai North jurisdiction, the handling office for Padi stays consistent across years, which matters when filings or approvals span cycles.
Commercial activity in Padi runs high, so GST Revocation volumes scale through peak months and we staff the Padi desk accordingly. Freight and foot traffic from the Padi Pudunagar Bus Stop hub pull steady daily commerce through Padi, so there is rarely a quiet filing month in this industrial residential mixed pocket. Document pickup near Padi Flyover is a same-hour errand for our Padi engagements rather than the half-day a typical Chennai client expects. Padi reads as a industrial residential mixed pocket with high commercial activity, anchored around Padi Flyover and fed by the Padi Pudunagar Bus Stop corridor.
The engineering firms we serve in Padi value a GST Revocation partner who already understands their sector's compliance rhythm. engineering units around Padi share recurring GST Revocation patterns — input-credit timing, vendor reconciliation, and sector-specific documentation. For a engineering business in Padi, the GST Revocation scope is rarely generic; we tailor the checklist to how that sector actually transacts. A engineering operator in Padi gets a GST Revocation workflow shaped by sector norms, not a one-size-fits-all template.
Our Padi GST Revocation process is built to be predictable, documented, and on time, cycle after cycle. From the first GST Revocation cycle, a Padi engagement is set up to be audit-ready rather than reconstructed under pressure later. Turnaround for Padi GST Revocation is deterministic — fixed fee, a scoped timeline, and a same-business-day acknowledgement once filed. Working papers for Padi GST Revocation engagements stay archived and retrievable, which makes any later notice or query straightforward to answer.
We treat Padi and Ambattur as one catchment for GST Revocation, which keeps documentation and turnaround consistent. GST Revocation clients in Ambattur are handled by the same practitioners who run our Padi desk. From the same Padi team we also serve Ambattur and other nearby localities without re-onboarding clients. A client relocating between Padi and Ambattur keeps the same GST Revocation file and the same team.
Sector signals in Padi — seasonal residential swings and peak-period volumes — shape how we schedule GST Revocation work. Because we work repeatedly across Padi, we can benchmark a new client's GST Revocation position against the locality norm. The GST Revocation mistakes we see most in Padi are avoidable with disciplined intake, which our checklist enforces. Recurring gaps in Padi residential records are the first thing our GST Revocation review closes out.
A startup setting up near Padi Flyover in Padi gets a GST Revocation foundation built for the Ambattur Division from day one. Shifting principal place of business to Padi means updating jurisdiction to the Chennai North, and we manage the paperwork end-to-end. For a new business incorporating in Padi or shifting its principal place of business here, GST Revocation setup is one of the first things to get right. Relocating a registered office into Padi (PIN 600050) changes the assessing division, and we handle that GST Revocation transition cleanly.
REG-21 revocation of suo motu cancelled GSTIN under Section 30 of the CGST Act for Padi businesses, filed within the 90/180 day statutory window with all pending returns cleared and tax dues paid.
A dedicated GST revocation consultant in Padi 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 Padi 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 Padi, 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.
No. The common portal blocks e-way bill generation for a cancelled GSTIN. Movement of goods during the cancelled period exposes the consignment to detention under Section 129 of the CGST Act, with penalty up to the tax on the consignment.
Madras High Court orders have accepted medical emergencies, non-service of the cancellation order at the registered address, prolonged hospitalisation of the authorised signatory, succession on death of the proprietor, and natural calamities as sufficient cause within the meaning of the first proviso to Section 30(1).
Personal hearing is mandatory under Section 75(4) once expressly sought in the REG-24 reply. The Madras High Court in cases following Tapas Dutta v UoI has set aside revocation rejections passed without personal hearing where the right had been claimed in writing.
Yes. CBIC Instruction 04/2023-GST discourages retrospective cancellation absent specific grounds. A prayer in REG-21 for correction of the effective date to the date of the order is recognised practice and preserves recipient input tax credit for the disputed period.
Union of India v Bharti Airtel held that pre-GSTR-2B self-assessment rectification could not be claimed at the recipient's instance. The ruling does not preclude reconciliation evidence at the revocation stage where the proper officer himself is verifying past compliance position.
Suncraft Energy v Asst Commissioner of State Tax held that the recipient cannot be denied input tax credit on account of supplier default unless the department proceeds against the supplier first. The principle assists where supplier non-filing is raised as a collateral ground at the revocation stage.
What Padi clients want to know before signing: Closer to Padi, around the Padi Flyover catchment of Padi.
Reading this guide locally — Padi businesses operate where in the industrial-residential mixed micro-market of Padi.
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.
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.
Where the ninety-day window under Section 30(1) is allowed to lapse without filing REG-21 and without seeking an extension under the provisos, the substantive remedy of revocation is generally lost. The fallback options are limited: a fresh registration under Section 25 with a new Goods and Services Tax Identification Number, or an appeal against the cancellation order itself under Section 107 of the CGST Act within three months of the cancellation order. Fresh registration loses the credit-chain continuity. Section 107 appeal proceeds on the merits of the cancellation itself rather than the merits of revocation, and the appellate authority may direct restoration but the procedural path is longer than the Section 30 route. The risk of window-lapse therefore translates into either credit-ledger loss or extended litigation, both of which the Section 30 route is designed to avoid.
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 first-proviso extension under Section 30(1) is sought through a formal application to the Additional Commissioner or Joint Commissioner having jurisdiction, accompanied by documentary evidence of the sufficient cause being relied on. The application is filed on the common portal in the prescribed format read with the jurisdictional commissionerate's standing instructions. The application must be filed within the original ninety-day window; an application filed after the ninetieth day generally does not meet the statutory requirement of being within the said period. The Additional Commissioner or Joint Commissioner records reasons in writing while granting or refusing the extension, and the order is uploaded to the registered person's dashboard. The Section 30(1) extension architecture sits within the broader CGST procedural framework, and the recorded reasons facilitate downstream review if the extension is refused.
The sufficient-cause threshold under the first proviso is examined case by case but appellate guidance has crystallised illustrative grounds. Documented hospitalisation of the proprietor or authorised signatory during a substantial part of the ninety-day window is consistently treated as sufficient cause. Genuine inability to access books of account due to office relocation, vacating of leased premises, or theft of records supported by First Information Report is similarly accepted. Force-majeure events including natural disasters affecting the principal place of business, civil disturbances and pandemic-related restrictions have been recognised, with the Notification 25/2020-Central Tax and subsequent pandemic-period notifications serving as the procedural framework during the relevant periods. The threshold is liberal where the cause is documented and contemporaneous, and conservative where the cause is asserted without supporting evidence.
An extension granted under the first proviso enlarges only the procedural window within which REG-21 must be filed; it does not relax the substantive Rule 23(1) preconditions. All returns due for the default period must still be filed, all tax and interest must still be paid, all late fee must still be discharged before REG-21 can be entertained. The practical implication is that the extension is most useful when the returns reconstruction itself is the bottleneck; once the returns are filed and the dues paid, the actual REG-21 filing is a relatively quick step that does not need the extra time. Strategic use of the extension therefore involves filing the extension application early in the original ninety-day window when it becomes apparent that the returns reconstruction will overrun, rather than waiting until the eighty-fifth day.
Strategically the cumulative one-fifty-day window should be planned at the cancellation stage rather than utilised reactively. Practitioners assessing the REG-19 cancellation order against the registered person's books make an early determination on whether the ninety-day base window is sufficient. Where the books are clean and the default period is short, the base window suffices and the provisos are unused. Where the books are disrupted or the default period is long, both proviso extensions are budgeted from day one and the application sequence is initiated proactively. The strategic approach reduces last-minute rushes and aligns documentation discipline with the relevant proviso threshold. Where neither proviso is needed, the registered person is in a stronger procedural posture for the actual REG-21 review.
The second proviso to Section 30(1) is operationally needed in the narrow band of cases where the cumulative one-twenty-day window under the first proviso is insufficient. Such cases typically involve a sufficient-cause event that persists beyond the first thirty-day extension, for example a prolonged hospitalisation, a multi-State office disruption requiring sequential records reconstruction, or a complex inter-jurisdictional records access issue. The second-proviso extension is not granted as a matter of course; the Commissioner-level review applies a stricter sufficient-cause scrutiny than the first-proviso level review at the Joint Commissioner. The practical incidence is low but the route is statutorily available and should be invoked where the underlying cause genuinely persists.
The second-proviso extension is sought by filing a fresh application addressed to the Commissioner having jurisdiction, within the cumulative one-twenty-day window. The application chains with the first-proviso order: the chronological narrative now extends from the original cancellation date through the first-proviso event and onward through the second-proviso event. The Commissioner records reasons in writing while granting or refusing the further extension. The cumulative cap stands at one hundred and fifty days computed from the REG-19 service date, beyond which Section 30 cannot be invoked further. The chaining requires careful date-tracking because an application filed on the one-twenty-first day technically falls outside the statutory framework even if the underlying cause genuinely persists.
What Padi clients usually ask next: Closer to Padi, for Padi units balancing production cycles with monthly GST and quarterly TDS compliance.
The proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 23 is the operative precondition that bars acceptance of REG-21 unless every return due till the date of cancellation order has been furnished with tax, interest and late fee paid. It is the procedural choke point that drives revocation timelines.
Personal hearing is the procedural right granted under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act to be heard before any adverse order is passed. In revocation practice, the hearing on a REG-23 show-cause is the taxpayer's opportunity to address the officer's concerns directly before REG-05 rejection is passed.
Section 107 appeal is the statutory appellate remedy available against a REG-05 rejection of revocation, lying before the First Appellate Authority within three months extendable by one month. The appeal in Form APL-01 carries a ten per cent pre-deposit requirement under sub-section (6).
Article 226 writ is the residuary constitutional remedy before a High Court used where statutory revocation has lapsed without taxpayer fault, where the Commissioner has refused extension without recording reasons, or where rejection is passed without personal hearing in breach of Section 75(4).
Madras High Court is the High Court exercising Article 226 jurisdiction over Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. It has, in a consistent line of orders, directed restoration of cancelled GSTINs subject to filing of returns and payment of dues, particularly where the procedural lapse was on the department's side.
Fresh registration is the fallback route under Form REG-01 when the outer 270-day revocation window has expired. It severs continuity with the cancelled GSTIN — pre-cancellation ITC cannot be carried forward, and a new GSTIN with a new effective date is issued.
Composition cancellation is suo motu cancellation under the proviso to Section 29(2)(b) where a composition taxpayer fails to file GSTR-4 for three consecutive tax periods. Revocation requires every defaulted GSTR-4 plus quarterly CMP-08 statements to be filed before REG-21.
ECL deposit is the act of depositing money into the Electronic Cash Ledger through a PMT-06 challan; the ECL balance is then debited against return-filing liabilities. For revocation, the ECL must be loaded with the aggregate dues before defaulted returns can be filed.
Service of order refers to the formal communication of REG-19 to the taxpayer through the common portal email, registered SMS and portal status update. The date of service — not the date of signing — is the limitation-starting date for Section 30 computation.
Reasoned order is the requirement under Section 75(6) of the CGST Act that any order under the Act must record the reasons forming the basis of the decision. A REG-05 rejection of revocation without reasons is amenable to challenge before the appellate forum or in writ.
Condonation of delay is the discretionary power to overlook procedural delay where sufficient cause is shown. In revocation, condonation operates through the Commissioner's 180-day extension power under the Section 30 proviso, and beyond that through Section 107(4) appellate condonation of one month.
Anti-profiteering ground is the cancellation trigger under Section 29(2)(d) read with Section 171 — violation of the requirement to pass on rate reduction or ITC benefit to the recipient. Revocation against this ground typically requires the NAA / GST Appellate Authority order to be set aside or complied with first.
Numerical examples showing tax + interest + penalty across common default scenarios.
How Padi businesses typically avoid these: Closer to Padi, the business activity radiating outward from Padi Flyover and nearby commercial pockets, which is why for Padi units balancing production cycles with monthly GST and quarterly TDS compliance.
How the local trade mix shapes this — Padi businesses operate where the business activity radiating outward from Padi Flyover and nearby commercial pockets.
Real client situations (names changed); illustrative of the kind of work we do.
Why these Padi engagements look the way they do: Closer to Padi, the cluster of industrial, engineering, residential businesses that defines Padi's commercial fabric, which is why for Padi units balancing production cycles with monthly GST and quarterly TDS compliance.
“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 Padi clients. Call 9566-068-468 for specific queries.
Across Padi we look after firms on SIDCO Industrial Road, SIDCO Nagar 4th Main Road, School Road, Chennai - Tiruttani - Renigunta Road and Jawaharlal Nehru Road (100 Feet Road) as well as the New Avadi Road, East Avenue Road, East avenue Road and Konnur High Road corridors — local GST Revocation without the cross-city travel.
Professional GST Revocation in Padi, 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.