Qualified GST Revocation for Thoraipakkam (PIN 600097) and adjacent Perungudi — with WhatsApp-first document intake
GST Revocation for Thoraipakkam firms under Chennai South (Mylapore Division) by qualified experts with a 15+ year, zero-penalty record. Call 9566-068-468.
The cancellation order in REG-19, copies of all pending returns filed with ARN, challans evidencing tax / late fee / interest payment (PMT-06, DRC-03 where applicable), proof of business continuity (rent agreement, electricity bill, photographs of premises), bank statement and a covering letter explaining cause for delay or default that led to cancellation.
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 Thoraipakkam — qualified professionals, 15+ years experience, zero-penalty track record.
For Thoraipakkam 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 Thoraipakkam 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.
Notification 03/2023-Central Tax (read with 24/2023) provided amnesty for cancellation orders upto 31-Dec-2022. Where applicable, we leverage this notification to file REG-21 outside the regular window on amnesty conditions.
Cancellation order, pending invoices, bank statements and authorised signatory DSC details are shared via WhatsApp at 9566-068-468. Entire revocation handled remotely for Thoraipakkam clients.
Our practice has handled registration restoration matters since the pre-GST era — service tax, VAT and excise registration restorations carried into GST suo motu cancellation revocations under Section 30. Deep institutional memory of jurisdictional officers.
Every GST Revocation engagement delivers measurable, guaranteed outcomes — expert professionals, on time, every time.
Why this matters here — Thoraipakkam businesses operate where the business activity radiating outward from OMR Toll Plaza and nearby commercial pockets, and with quick access via Thoraipakkam Bus Stop and feeder routes connecting Thoraipakkam to the rest of Chennai.
Share documents via WhatsApp to 9566-068-468. No office visit required for Thoraipakkam clients.
Miss any of these and the next consequence kicks in automatically.
Deadlines in this neighbourhood — Thoraipakkam businesses operate where the cluster of it services, e-commerce, residential businesses that defines Thoraipakkam's commercial fabric.
Deadline pressure points we see in Thoraipakkam: Closer to Thoraipakkam, for Thoraipakkam IT-services firms managing export-LUT cycles alongside payroll and TDS.
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
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
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 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 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 sourceSection 39 of the CGST Act mandates monthly or quarterly return filing in Form GSTR-3B by every registered person. The first proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 23 bars the proper officer from accepting a REG-21 revocation application unless every return due till the date of cancellation order is furnished and the tax payable along with interest under Section 50 and late fee under Section 47 is discharged. Non-furnishing of returns under Section 39 for the prescribed continuous period itself constitutes the trigger for suo motu cancellation under Section 29(2)(c).
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 sourceBusinesses registered in Thoraipakkam share the Chennai South jurisdiction, and their statutory matters route through the same Mylapore Division each time. Statutory correspondence for Thoraipakkam businesses routes through the Mylapore Division, so we align every GST Revocation engagement to that jurisdiction from the start. Thoraipakkam (PIN 600097) falls under the Mylapore Division of the Chennai South, the jurisdiction that handles statutory matters for businesses at this PIN. Because PIN 600097 sits inside the Chennai South jurisdiction, the handling office for Thoraipakkam stays consistent across years, which matters when filings or approvals span cycles.
Each GST Revocation cycle for Thoraipakkam reflects its commercial rhythm — invoices generated near OMR Toll Plaza, expenses routed through the Thoraipakkam Bus Stop freight network. Freight and foot traffic from the Thoraipakkam Bus Stop hub pull steady daily commerce through Thoraipakkam, so there is rarely a quiet filing month in this it corridor residential and retail pocket. Document pickup near OMR Toll Plaza is a same-hour errand for our Thoraipakkam engagements rather than the half-day a typical Chennai client expects. Working in Thoraipakkam brings a logistical edge: proximity to OMR Toll Plaza and the Thoraipakkam Bus Stop corridor keeps physical document handling fast.
We have closed enough GST Revocation files for residential firms near Thoraipakkam to know where the department usually probes. GST Revocation for residential businesses in Thoraipakkam hinges on getting the sector's recurring entries right the first time. The residential firms we serve in Thoraipakkam value a GST Revocation partner who already understands their sector's compliance rhythm. Because Thoraipakkam hosts a cluster of residential businesses, we benchmark each new GST Revocation engagement against patterns we already track for the locality.
Document intake for Thoraipakkam clients runs over WhatsApp, so there is no office visit and no paper shuffle for a GST Revocation engagement. Turnaround for Thoraipakkam GST Revocation is deterministic — fixed fee, a scoped timeline, and a same-business-day acknowledgement once filed. The qualified-review step on every Thoraipakkam GST Revocation file is where errors get caught before they reach the portal. Fixed-fee scoping means a Thoraipakkam business knows the GST Revocation cost up front, with no surprise additions mid-engagement.
From the same Thoraipakkam team we also serve Perungudi and other nearby localities without re-onboarding clients. A client relocating between Thoraipakkam and Perungudi keeps the same GST Revocation file and the same team. We treat Thoraipakkam and Perungudi as one catchment for GST Revocation, which keeps documentation and turnaround consistent. Businesses straddling Thoraipakkam and Perungudi get a single GST Revocation point of contact rather than two.
Recurring gaps in Thoraipakkam residential records are the first thing our GST Revocation review closes out. The GST Revocation mistakes we see most in Thoraipakkam are avoidable with disciplined intake, which our checklist enforces. Over several cycles in Thoraipakkam, the recurring GST Revocation issues cluster around a predictable short list we screen for early. Each engagement in Thoraipakkam adds to a record of what the Chennai South jurisdiction expects, sharpening the next GST Revocation file.
When a Kandanchavadi business expands into Thoraipakkam, we extend its GST Revocation setup to PIN 600097 without disruption. First-time GST Revocation for a Thoraipakkam business is where getting the basics right saves years of cleanup later. Incorporating in Thoraipakkam comes with jurisdiction, registration and GST Revocation steps that we sequence so nothing stalls the launch. We onboard new Thoraipakkam entities onto a GST Revocation cadence that is audit-ready from the very first cycle.
REG-21 revocation of suo motu cancelled GSTIN under Section 30 of the CGST Act for Thoraipakkam businesses, filed within the 90/180 day statutory window with all pending returns cleared and tax dues paid.
A dedicated GST revocation consultant in Thoraipakkam 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 Thoraipakkam 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 Thoraipakkam, 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.
Goetze (India) v CIT held that fresh claims under the Income-tax Act required a revised return mechanism. The ratio is distinguishable in GST revocation since REG-21 is an administrative restoration with no statutory bar on contemporaneous ledger correction or rectification supported by documentary evidence.
Each REG-19 order requires a separate REG-21 application addressing the specific ground in that order. Where two orders exist, the first must be revoked through REG-22 before the second can be taken up; serial handling is the practical approach.
No statutory filing fee is prescribed for REG-21 on the common portal. The financial exposure at the revocation stage is the back-return late fee, tax-with-interest under Section 50, and where applicable the ten per cent pre-deposit if a Section 107 appeal follows a rejection.
The pre-cancellation LUT in Form RFD-11 is treated as inactive during the cancelled period. On REG-22 a fresh LUT must be filed for the remainder of the financial year; export consignments in the cancelled period may be regularised via revised invoices on restoration.
A tax-deductor GSTIN cancelled for GSTR-7 non-filing can be revoked through the same Section 30 route. On REG-22 the deductor GSTIN is restored and the previously deducted TDS flows to contractor cash ledgers in the next GSTR-2A cycle following GSTR-7 backlog clearance.
Yes. Cancellation under Rule 25 for Aadhaar-authentication failure is reversible on biometric authentication completion at a designated Common Service Centre. The biometric acknowledgement and the authorised signatory's affidavit support the REG-21 prayer.
What Thoraipakkam clients want to know before signing: Closer to Thoraipakkam, on the Perungudi-Sholinganallur corridor that passes through Thoraipakkam.
Reading this guide locally — Thoraipakkam businesses operate where on the Perungudi-Sholinganallur corridor that passes through Thoraipakkam.
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.
Notification 03/2023-Central Tax, issued on 31 March 2023 pursuant to the 49th GST Council recommendation, opened a special window for filing REG-21 for cancellations under Section 29(2)(b) and (c) where the order was passed up to 31 December 2022. The notification extended the time limit under Section 30(1) for such cancellations to 30 June 2023, subject to all returns being filed and dues being paid. The design objective was to enable a backlog of taxpayers who had missed the original window to access the Section 30 route through a defined relief period. The notification provided certainty around the relief window dates and was paired with Notification 07/2023 on late-fee relief to make the path operationally viable.
Notification 23/2023-Central Tax, issued in July 2023 pursuant to the 50th GST Council recommendation, extended the Notification 03/2023 amnesty further. The extension covered additional cancellations and pushed the filing window forward. The recurring extensions reflected the GST Council's recognition that taxpayer awareness of the amnesty was uneven and that a single window often did not reach all affected taxpayers. The extensions were not unconditional; they continued to require Rule 23(1) precondition compliance and the substantive bona fides of revocation. The amnesty architecture is therefore best understood as a procedural facilitation rather than a substantive concession — the underlying default still has to be cured, but the timing window for the cure is enlarged.
Strategic invocation of the applicable amnesty in the REG-21 narrative strengthens the application materially. The narrative should explicitly state: the date of the original REG-19 cancellation order; the historical default window; the applicable amnesty notification by number and date; the eligibility of the cancellation under that notification; the filing of all pending returns within the amnesty window; the discharge of all dues within the amnesty window; and the prayer for revocation under Section 30 read with the amnesty notification. The explicit invocation aligns the REG-21 review with the relief framework the proper officer is required to apply. Implicit invocation, by contrast, risks the officer not applying the amnesty automatically. The explicit-invocation discipline is a practitioner-judgement element that consistently improves outcomes.
Section 107 of the CGST Act provides the first appellate remedy against any decision or order passed under the Act by an adjudicating authority. Sub-section (1) opens the appeal to any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed by an adjudicating authority. The appeal lies to the Appellate Authority (typically the Joint Commissioner Appeals or Additional Commissioner Appeals depending on the jurisdiction and the monetary limit set under Section 107(3)). The limitation under Section 107(1) is three months from the date on which the order is communicated to the person aggrieved. Section 107(4) permits the Appellate Authority to allow an additional one-month period beyond the three-month limit on sufficient cause being shown. The combined window is therefore four months at the outer edge.
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.
Section 30(2) of the CGST Act mandates the procedural sequence the proper officer must follow on receipt of a Section 30(1) application. Sub-section (2) provides that the proper officer may, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed, by an order, either revoke cancellation of the registration or reject the application. The first proviso to Section 30(2) imposes a natural-justice safeguard by requiring that the application for revocation shall not be rejected unless the applicant has been given an opportunity of being heard. The hearing requirement is operationalised through Form REG-23 which is the show cause notice the proper officer must issue before recording a rejection, and Form REG-24 which is the reply window given to the applicant. The combined REG-23 and REG-24 cycle ensures that no Section 30 application terminates in rejection without a documented opportunity to address the officer's concerns.
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.
What Thoraipakkam clients usually ask next: Closer to Thoraipakkam, for Thoraipakkam IT-services firms managing export-LUT cycles alongside payroll and TDS.
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.
Rule 86B ground is a cancellation trigger where the taxpayer has failed to discharge at least one per cent of output tax liability in cash, in violation of Rule 86B that applies to taxpayers with monthly taxable turnover above ₹50 lakh. Revocation requires demonstration of compliance or applicability of the rule's exceptions.
Fake invoice cancellation is a high-stakes cancellation under Section 29(2)(e) read with Rule 21(b) where the registration is alleged to have been used to issue invoices without underlying supply. Revocation requires factual demonstration of actual supply, often supported by transport documents and e-way bills.
Numerical examples showing tax + interest + penalty across common default scenarios.
How Thoraipakkam businesses typically avoid these: Closer to Thoraipakkam, the business activity radiating outward from OMR Toll Plaza and nearby commercial pockets, which is why for Thoraipakkam IT-services firms managing export-LUT cycles alongside payroll and TDS.
How the local trade mix shapes this — Thoraipakkam businesses operate where the business activity radiating outward from OMR Toll Plaza and nearby commercial pockets.
Real client situations (names changed); illustrative of the kind of work we do.
Why these Thoraipakkam engagements look the way they do: Closer to Thoraipakkam, the business activity radiating outward from OMR Toll Plaza and nearby commercial pockets, which is why for Thoraipakkam 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 Thoraipakkam clients. Call 9566-068-468 for specific queries.
Across Thoraipakkam we look after firms on Kumaran Kudil Main Road, Pillaiyar Kovil Street, Raju Nagar 3rd Street, Raju Nagar 6th Street and Sakthi Srinivasan Salai Main Road as well as the Secretariat Colony Main Road, Subramanya Nagar Street Road, Rajiv Gandhi Salai and Bharathiyar Nagar Main Road corridors — local GST Revocation without the cross-city travel.
Professional GST Revocation in Thoraipakkam, 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.