JUDGMENT The petitioner is one of the legal heirs of Sri.Natarajan, who was conducting a business in the name and style of “MRT Metal Mart”. The said Natarajan passed away on 15.11.2021. The petitioner as well as the 3 rd and 5 th respondents are the sons of the said Natarajan and the 4 th respondent is the wife of the said Natarajan. Dispute involved in this writ petition is in relation to the order passed by the 1 st respondent cancelling the registration of a firm run by the 3 rd respondent and the order of rejection of the application submitted by the 3 rd respondent to revoke the said order of cancellation. 2. The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: As mentioned above, Sri.Natarajan was conducting a business namely, “MRT Metal Mart” till he passed away on 15.11.2021. The 3 rd respondent was having a different establishment registered under the CGST and KGST Act in the name and style “Brinda Metal Mart” since 2017. After the death of Sri.Natarajan on 15.11.2021, an application was submitted by the 3 rd respondent before the 1 st respondent, for amending the registration of his business establishment, by substituting the name of the firm M/s.Brinda Metal Mart with M/s MRT Metal Mart, which name was used by the deceased father. The said change of name was allowed on 17.11.2021. 3. Immediately thereafter, a further application was submitted for adding certain business places as well, which belonged to the father of the 3 rd respondent’s establishment . To support the claim for adding additional business places, Exts.P3 and P4 no objection certificates were relied on, by which, the 3 rd respondent was permitted to use the business places referred to therein, for conducting and operating the business of MRT Metal Mart. Ext.P3, which is one of the consent letters, is in the name of Sri.T.Natarajan, the father of the petitioner and the 3 rd respondent, but the signature thereon was made by the 4 th respondent, the mother of the 3 rd respondent and the writ petitioner. Similarly, in Ext P4 also, the 4 th respondent signed in the name of the said Natarajan. The said documents were executed on 18.11.2021, i.e., after the death of the said Natarajan. 4. Similarly, in Ext P4 also, the 4 th respondent signed in the name of the said Natarajan. The said documents were executed on 18.11.2021, i.e., after the death of the said Natarajan. 4. The applications submitted for amendment and for incorporating additional business places based on Exts.P3 and P4, were allowed and a fresh registration certificate was issued incorporating all the said amendments. Subsequently, the 1 st respondent, as per Ext.P6, initiated suo motu proceedings for cancellation of the registration of M/s MRT Metal Mart, which originally stood registered in the name of M/s Brinda Metal Mart. The reason stated in Ext.P6 was that, the amendment in the registration particulars was obtained by the 3 rd respondent by means of fraud, willful misstatement and suppression of facts and therefore, registration of the MRT Metal Mart [originally Brinda Metal Mart] has to be cancelled. 5. The petitioner herein approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (c) No.6509 of 2025, seeking a direction to the 1 st respondent to consider the representation submitted by him, which was produced as Ext.P3 in the said writ petition. The said representation was submitted in the light of Ext.P6 order passed. This Court passed an interim order as evidenced by Ext.P7 in the said writ petition on 20.03.2025, directing the respondents 1 and 4 therein to seal forthwith, the godowns of erstwhile MRT Metal Mart, as mentioned in the writ petition, pending disposal of the writ petition. While the said writ petition was pending consideration, the 3 rd respondent submitted an application for revoking the order of cancellation of registration, which is Ext.P6. 6. Subsequently, the 3 rd respondent filed W.P (C)No.1855 of 2025 before this Court, seeking expeditious disposal of the application submitted by him, for revocation of the order of cancellation under Section 30 of the CGST Act. Both the said writ petitions were disposed of by this Court as per Ext.P9 judgment, by which, the 1 st respondent was directed to consider Ext.P8, which is an application submitted by the 3 rd respondent for revocation of Ext.P6 order, within a specified time limit after hearing the petitioner herein, the 3 rd respondent and 5 th respondent. Both the said writ petitions were disposed of by this Court as per Ext.P9 judgment, by which, the 1 st respondent was directed to consider Ext.P8, which is an application submitted by the 3 rd respondent for revocation of Ext.P6 order, within a specified time limit after hearing the petitioner herein, the 3 rd respondent and 5 th respondent. It was also clarified that, the direction to seal the godowns shall be confined to the properties of erstwhile MRT Metal Mart, and if any godowns other than that of MRT Metal Mart has been sealed, the aggrieved party shall be at liberty to point it out with the 4 th respondent in W.P(C)No.6509 of 2025. 7. Acting upon the directions in Ext.P9 judgment, the 1 st respondent considered the application submitted by the 3 rd respondent under Section 30 of the CGST Act and after hearing all the parties, issued Ext.P10 order, by which the application submitted by the 3 rd respondent was rejected and thereby confirming the cancellation of registration of MRT Metal Mart, previously known as M/s Brinda Metal Mart. 8. The 3 rd respondent challenged the same before the 2 nd respondent by filing an appeal, which resulted in Ext.P11 order. As per Ext.P11, the 2 nd respondent appellate authority ultimately came to the conclusion that, even though the amendment of registration particulars were carried out based on invalid documents, the decision taken by the 1 st respondent to cancel the registration was not proper, as the circumstances under which the registration can be cancelled, are not in existence. Thus, the order rejecting the revocation application filed by the petitioner was found to be not legally sustainable and it was set aside. Thus, the registration of the 3 rd respondent was restored. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances, challenging Ext.P11. 9. Separate counter affidavits were filed by the 3 rd and 4 th respondents, denying the averments contained in the writ petition and opposing the reliefs. In the counter affidavit submitted by the 3 rd respondent, the details of the civil litigation pending between the parties and the interim orders passed are furnished. Copies of the orders passed by the civil court on the interlocutory applications submitted by the parties, are also produced. In the counter affidavit submitted by the 3 rd respondent, the details of the civil litigation pending between the parties and the interim orders passed are furnished. Copies of the orders passed by the civil court on the interlocutory applications submitted by the parties, are also produced. It is pointed out that, as per Ext.R3(g) order passed by the 1 st Additional Sub Court Thiruvananthapuram in OS No. 172/2022, which was submitted by the petitioner herein and another, the order of injunction granted in favour of the petitioner was vacated and the application submitted by the petitioner for appointing a receiver for managing the business was also rejected. The only direction issued therein was that, the 3 rd respondent shall submit the returns without any default. It was also contended that, in Ext.R3(g), the civil court took note of the fact that, the 3 rd respondent is continuing the business, and the application for appointment for the receiver was rejected, on finding that, as the management of the business requires expertise, the said prayer is not feasible. It is also averred that, even though certain criminal cases were registered against the 3 rd respondent on the complaint of the petitioner, the same were ultimately closed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thirunelveli, as per Ext.R3(k), as the Police, after investigation, submitted a refer report, by finding that it is a civil dispute. 10. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4 th respondent, the stand taken by the said respondent, who is the mother of the petitioner and the 3 rd respondent, is by supporting the 3 rd respondent. According to the 4 th respondent, as per the Will executed by the deceased Natarajan, the entire business is bequeathed to the 3 rd respondent and according to her, the 3 rd respondent is entitled to continue in the business. The reliefs sought by the petitioner in the writ petition are opposed by the 4 th respondent as well. 11. The 1 st respondent also filed a counter affidavit. The petitioner submitted reply affidavit to the counter affidavits filed by the respondents. 12. I have heard Sri. Joseph Markose, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri. Premjith Nagendran, appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Arun Ajay Shankar, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1 st and 2 nd respondents, Sri. The 1 st respondent also filed a counter affidavit. The petitioner submitted reply affidavit to the counter affidavits filed by the respondents. 12. I have heard Sri. Joseph Markose, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri. Premjith Nagendran, appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Arun Ajay Shankar, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1 st and 2 nd respondents, Sri. Mayankutty Mather, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Smt. Parvathy appearing for the 3 rd respondent, Smt. H.Hemalatha, the learned Counsel appearing for the 4 th respondent and Sri. V. Girishkumar, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 6 th respondent. 13. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, in all the orders passed by the authorities .ie., Exts.P6, P10 and P11, the specific finding with regard to the amendment carried out is that, the same was based on documents which are not valid. It was pointed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that, the basic documents relied on, to effect the amendment were Ext.P3 and Ext P4, which are consent letters in the name of the deceased Natarajan, after his death. The stamp paper was purchased on 18.11.2021 in the name of the 3 rd respondent, whereas, the said Natarajan died on 15.11.2021. The same are purported to have been signed by the 4 th respondent herein, in the name of Sri. Natarajan. It was pointed out that, as per the said documents, the 3 rd respondent was given permission to use the property originally owned by Sri.Natarjan, for the purpose of running the business establishment of the 3 rd respondent. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the said documents could not have been acted upon, as the same was issued in the name of person, who was not alive as on the date of execution of the same. It was further pointed out that, even if it was assumed that those were valid documents executed by the 4 th respondent in her individual capacity, still the same could not have been acted upon, as the 4 th respondent being only one of the legal heirs, was not having a proper authority to grant such a permission without the consent the other legal heirs, including the petitioner. 14. 14. The senior counsel also brought to the attention of this Court, the statutory stipulations contained in Sec.28, Sec.29 and Sec.30 of the CGST Act, that deal with the amendment of registration, the cancellation of registration and revocation of cancellation of registration. 15. The learned senior counsel appearing for the 3 rd respondent argued at length, highlighting that, no circumstances as envisaged in Sec.29 of the CGST Act read with Rule 21 of CGST Rules, are in existence, so as to cancel the registration. It is pointed out that, the fact that the amendment affected was not in a proper manner, cannot be a reason to cancel the registration of the firm as such. As an explanation for the anomaly with regard to Ext.P3 and P4, as found in the impugned orders, the learned senior counsel for the 3 rd respondent explains that, it was only an inadvertent mistake, while preparing the document by the Accountant. It is also the case of the 3 rd respondent that, since Ext.P3 and P4 were issued immediately after the death of the said Natarajan and at a time when the 4 th respondent was grieving the death of his father, proper attention was not apparently given as to the contents of the Ext.P3 while executing the document. 16. It was also pointed out that, if at all any irregularity is there, remedy for the same is to initiate proceedings under Sec.122 (xii) of the CGST Act, and under no circumstances, the same could be a reason to cancel the registration under Sec.29 of the CGST Act. The learned senior counsel also relied on the orders passed by the civil courts, recognizing the right of the 3 rd respondent to continue the business and rejecting the injunction sought by the petition, as well as the prayer sought by them to appoint a receiver for managing the business. 17. The learned counsel appearing for the 4 th respondent supported the contentions of the 3 rd respondent, by bringing the attention of this Court to the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the 4 th respondent where the strained relationship between the parties, with specific reference to the conduct of the petitioner was made. 18. I have carefully gone through the records and considered the contentions raised by all the parties. 18. I have carefully gone through the records and considered the contentions raised by all the parties. The first question to be considered is whether, the cancellation of registration, which was interfered with the appellate authority as per Ext.P11, is to be set aside or not. As regards the findings in Ext.P11, it is to be noted that, the appellate authority interfered with the order of cancellation of registration and the rejection of application for revocation of the same, mainly on the ground that, the circumstances under which the registration could be canceled, as envisaged in Sec.29 of the Act, were not established in the given facts and circumstances of the case. The appellate authority took note of the fact that, the only reason for cancellation of registration by the 1 st respondent was that, an amendment of the registration particulars was carried out, based on invalid documents and it was found that, the same by itself could not be a reason to cancel the registration as such. While considering this question, an examination of the statutory stipulations contained in Sec.29 in necessary, which reads as follows:- 29. Cancellation or suspension of registration.— (1) The proper officer may, either on his own motion or on an application filed by the registered person or by his legal heirs, in case of death of such person, cancel the registration, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed, having regard to the circumstances where,– (a) the business has been discontinued, transferred fully for any reason including death of the proprietor, amalgamated with other legal entity, demerged or otherwise disposed of; or (b) there is any change in the constitution of the business; or (c) the taxable person, is no longer liable to be registered under section 22 or 24 or intends to opt out the registration voluntarily made under sub-section (3) of section 25other than the person registered under sub-section (3) of section 25. PROVIDED that during pendency of the proceedings relating to cancellation of registration filed by the registered person, the registration may be suspended for such period and in such manner as may be prescribed. PROVIDED that during pendency of the proceedings relating to cancellation of registration filed by the registered person, the registration may be suspended for such period and in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) The proper officer may cancel the registration of a person from such date, including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit, where,– (a) a registered person has contravened such provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder as may be prescribed; or (b) a person paying tax under section 10 has not furnished returns for three consecutive tax periods; or (c) any registered person, other than a person specified in clause (b), has not furnished returns for a continuous period of six months; or (d) any person who has taken voluntary registration under sub-section (3) of section 25 has not commenced business within six months from the date of registration; or (e) registration has been obtained by means of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts: PROVIDED that the proper officer shall not cancel the registration without giving the person an opportunity of being heard: PROVIDED FURTHER that during pendency of the proceedings relating to cancellation of registration, the proper officer may suspend the registration for such period and in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) The cancellation of registration under this section shall not affect the liability of the person to pay tax and other dues under this Act or to discharge any obligation under this Act or the rules made thereunder for any period prior to the date of cancellation whether or not such tax and other dues are determined before or after the date of cancellation. (4) The cancellation of registration under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be a cancellation of registration under this Act. (4) The cancellation of registration under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be a cancellation of registration under this Act. (5) Every registered person whose registration is cancelled shall pay an amount, by way of debit in the electronic credit ledger or electronic cash ledger, equivalent to the credit of input tax in respect of inputs held in stock and inputs contained in semifinished or finished goods held in stock or capital goods or plant and machinery on the day immediately preceding the date of such cancellation or the output tax payable on such goods, whichever is higher, calculated in such manner as may be prescribed: PROVIDED that in case of capital goods or plant and machinery, the taxable person shall pay an amount equal to the input tax credit taken on the said capital goods or plant and machinery, reduced by such percentage points as may be prescribed or the tax on the transaction value of such capital goods or plant and machinery under section 15, whichever is higher. (6) The amount payable under sub-section (5) shall be calculated in such manner as may be prescribed 19. On going through the above provision, it can be seen that, what is relevant to the facts and circumstances of this case, is only Sec.29 (2) (e) which provides for cancellation, in case where the registration has been obtained by means of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts. Apparently, this clause was invoked by the 1 st respondent, while canceling the registration. However, on going through the materials placed before this Court, it can be seen that, there is no allegation that, the registration originally obtained by the 3 rd respondent was by means of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts. Even going by Ext.P6 and P10, the only reason stated is that, the amendment in the registration was based on the documents which are not legally valid and by suppression and willful misstatement. Even going by Ext.P6 and P10, the only reason stated is that, the amendment in the registration was based on the documents which are not legally valid and by suppression and willful misstatement. However, I find that, that by itself cannot be reason to enable the 1 st respondent to cancel the registration in view of the fact, the statutory stipulation contained in Sec.29 (2) (e) is very specific, which is to the effect that, the original registration must have been obtained by means of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts, which is not the case here. 20. Of course, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, since the amendment would relate back to the date of registration, the fraudulent amendment of the registration particulars will have an impact on the registration as such. On going by the specific stipulations contained in Sec. 29 (2) (e), I am not inclined to accept the said contention. This is because, what is dealt with in the above provision is the “obtaining of registration” by means of fraud willful misstatement or suppression of fact, and hence an amendment to the particulars of the registration at a subsequent stage, would not attract the said provision, under any circumstances. 21. However, even while holding that, the finding entered into by the 2 nd respondent as per Ext.P11 interfering with the order of the cancellation of registration of the 3 rd respondent is correct, I find that, the stand taken by the 2 nd respondent, not to interfere with the order of amendment passed, is not proper. This is particularly because, in Ext.P11, a specific finding has been entered into by the 2 nd respondent to the effect that, the amendment was carried out, based on the documents which were not legally valid. 22. The said findings are based on the fact that, the documents which are relied on by the 1 st respondent for affecting the amendment, i.e., Exts.P3 and P4, were executed in the name of a person who was not alive at the relevant time. As far as Ext.P3 is concerned, the same was signed by the 4 th respondent, the wife of the said Natarajan, after his death. Under no circumstances, such a document would create any right for the 3 rd respondent to seek an amendment. As far as Ext.P3 is concerned, the same was signed by the 4 th respondent, the wife of the said Natarajan, after his death. Under no circumstances, such a document would create any right for the 3 rd respondent to seek an amendment. In Ext.P4 also, the consent letter was executed jointly by one Sri. Ratnapandiyan, the brother of the deceased Natarajan. There also, signature of Natarajan was affixed by the 4 th respondent herself. Of course the petitioner claimed that, the signature of the 4 th respondent in Exts.P3 and P4 are forged. However, I am of the view that, the same need not be considered in this writ petition, as it is a question fact. Such an exercise is not within the scope of a proceeding under Article 226 of Constitution of India, as affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments including Sanjay Sitaram Khemka v. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2006) 5 SCC 255 , Thansingh Nathmal and Others v. Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri and Others, AIR 1964 SC 1419 , Sanjay Kumar Jha v. Prakash Chandra Chaudhary, (2019) 2 SCC 499 , State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723 . In State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs M/S M.V. Vyavsaya & Co, (1997) 1 SCC 156 , it was held that ; “15. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the power of the high Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not akin to appellate power. It is a supervisory power. While exercising this power, the court does not go into the merits of the decision taken by the authorities concerned but only ensures that the decision is arrived at in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and in accordance with the principles of natural justice wherever applicable. Further, where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court does not normally go into or adjudicate upon the disputed questions of fact….” Thus, such an adjudication is not necessary to decide the dispute in this writ petition. 23. It is also to be noted in this regard that, even if it is assumed that, those documents were properly executed by the 4 th respondent, the same could not have been acted upon by the 1 st respondent for the purpose of amending the registration particulars. 23. It is also to be noted in this regard that, even if it is assumed that, those documents were properly executed by the 4 th respondent, the same could not have been acted upon by the 1 st respondent for the purpose of amending the registration particulars. This is because, it is evident from the records that, the 4 th respondent was not the sole legal heir of deceased Natarajan. He left behind, the petitioner as well as 3 rd and 5 th respondents apart from the 4 th respondent, his wife. Therefore, in the absence of any document, which confers exclusive right upon the 4 th respondent over the properties in question, she could not have conveyed any right in favour of the 3 rd respondent, without the concurrence of the other legal legal heirs of the said Natarajan. 24. The learned senior counsel appearing for the 3 rd respondent pointed out that, there is no provision in the statute to cancel an order of amendment already permitted and therefore the decision taken by the 2 nd respondent in Ext.P11, by confining the relief to the rejection of order of cancellation is justified. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in W.P(C)No.19121 of 2024 in Ali. K and ors v. the Additional Director General and another . This decision was relied on by the learned senior counsel for the 3 rd respondent, to highlight the scope of interference by this Court, when there is lacuna in the statute. It was pointed out that, this Court is not supposed to fill up the lacuna, in such cases. Thus it is contended that, since there is no provision to interfere with the order passed allowing the amendment in the registration, no interference could be made by this Court under Art.226 of Constitution of India. 25. However, while considering this aspect, it is to be noted that, the amendment contemplated under Sec.28 is not automatic. In order to understand the real purport of the said provision, an examination of the said provision is necessary and it reads as follows:- 28. 25. However, while considering this aspect, it is to be noted that, the amendment contemplated under Sec.28 is not automatic. In order to understand the real purport of the said provision, an examination of the said provision is necessary and it reads as follows:- 28. Amendment of registration.— (1) Every registered person and a person to whom a Unique Identity Number has been assigned shall inform the proper officer of any changes in the information furnished at the time of registration or subsequent thereto, in such form and manner and within such period as may be prescribed. (2) The proper officer may, on the basis of information furnished under subsection (1) or as ascertained by him, approve or reject amendments in the registration particulars in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed: Provided that approval of the proper officer shall not be required in respect of amendment of such particulars as may be prescribed: Provided further that the proper officer shall not reject the application for amendment in the registration particulars without giving the person an opportunity of being heard. (3) Any rejection or approval of amendments under the State Goods and Services Tax or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax, as the case may be , shall be deemed to be a rejection or approval under this Act. 26. Sec.28 (2) provides that, the proper officer may, on the basis of information furnished under sub-section (1) or as ascertained by him, approve or reject amendments in the registration particulars in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed. Rule 19 of the CGST Rules also provides for verification of the details while effecting the registration. The expression “as ascertained by him”, used in sub-section (2) of Sec.28 would clearly convey that, the proper officer is under an obligation to examine the veracity of the documents or the information furnished before him, for the purpose of amendment, before acting upon the same and granting permission for such amendment. Therefore, when at a later point of time, it was brought to the notice of the proper officer that, the information could not be properly ascertained, owing to any fraudulent or willful misstatement on the part of the person who sought the amendment, necessarily the officer concerned, will have to rectify the said mistake. 27. Therefore, when at a later point of time, it was brought to the notice of the proper officer that, the information could not be properly ascertained, owing to any fraudulent or willful misstatement on the part of the person who sought the amendment, necessarily the officer concerned, will have to rectify the said mistake. 27. This is necessarily because, when the amendment was affected, based on legally invalid documents, that illegality will be carried to the amendment itself, thereby making the amendment also illegal. When such an illegality is noticed, the competent authority cannot permit such illegality to perpetuate, by taking no action on the same. It is a well settled position that, fraud vitiates all actions and hence when it is brought to the notice of the authorities that, the information furnished before the authority could not be ascertained properly, at the time when those information was acted upon, owing to such fraud or misstatement, the proper officer can have a re-look on the same, in view of the fact that the action taken based on such misinformation would be illegal in such circumstances. In other words, the order passed on such misinformation may not be “as ascertained by him” as required in section 28(2), since the act of ascertaining, was not proper owing to the fraud or willful misstatement. 28. As regards the reliance placed by the learned Senior counsel for the 3rd respondent on the judgment in Ali’s case (supra), I am of the view that the principles laid down therein may not be made applicable to this case, as the facts and circumstances under which the said decision rendered were completely different. It is a settled principle that the judgments have to be interpreted in the context of the specific facts and issues they address, and the observations cannot be applied rigidly without considering the factual backdrop of the case as held in Sarva Shramik Sanghatana (KV) v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 1 SCC 494 , Govt. of Karnataka v. Gowramma, (2007) 13 SCC 482 : AIR 2008 SC 863 , Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra , (2008) 16 SCC 14 , Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat, (1987) 1 SCC 213 , Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 111 , Bharat Petroleum Corpn. of Karnataka v. Gowramma, (2007) 13 SCC 482 : AIR 2008 SC 863 , Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra , (2008) 16 SCC 14 , Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat, (1987) 1 SCC 213 , Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 111 , Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. N.R. Vairamani, (2004) 8 SCC 579 Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare/Education Department v. L. R. Arunadevi, 2025 KHC 317 , this Court has rightly observed that ; “16. It is a well-settled principle of law that a judgment must be understood in the context of the facts of the case and cannot be treated as a general formula. Judicial observations are often case-specific and must be interpreted in light of the pleadings, issues, and evidence presented. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that judgments should be read and applied in the context of the specific facts and circumstances in which they were delivered.” In the said decision, this Court dealt with an order extending the attachment under the provisions of the CGST Act, beyond the statutory period of one year. The extensions so granted by the statutory authority were under challenge before this Court, and the observation which was relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the 3rd respondent was made in that context. However, in this case, I have already held that, the amendment could have been allowed by the statutory authority, only on ascertaining the genuineness of the information, and when the information could not be properly ascertained due to any fraud or willful misstatement on the part of the person who is seeking the amendment, the order allowing the amendment would become illegal. Thus, that is a crucial fact that distinguishes the case at hand from the case dealt with by this Court in Ali’s case (supra). 29. Another contention raised by the 3 rd respondent is that, since there is no provision to set aside an order allowing amendment of registration particulars, the only remedy for the Department is to initiate proceedings under section 122 of the CGST Act, particularly subsection (xii) thereof. 29. Another contention raised by the 3 rd respondent is that, since there is no provision to set aside an order allowing amendment of registration particulars, the only remedy for the Department is to initiate proceedings under section 122 of the CGST Act, particularly subsection (xii) thereof. With respect to the above, I am of the view that, the mere fact that a procedure is contemplated for imposing a penalty under the said provision, by itself cannot be a reason to hold that, that is the only remedy available to the statutory authority, in the circumstances referred to above. The purpose of section 122 is to punish the person responsible, by imposing penalty, and such penalty would not have the effect of regularizing an illegal order which happened to be passed, owning to an act of fraud, suppression or misstatement. In other words, if there is any illegality in carrying out the amendments, such illegality cannot be regularized by invoking any proceedings under Section 122 of the Act and by payment of the penalty. The irregularity in the process of amendment would still remain as an irregularity, and all the consequences on account of the same will follow, irrespective of the question of whether any proceedings are initiated under Section 122 or not. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the 3rd respondent. 30. When it comes to the factual circumstances of this case, it is to be noted that the order cancelling the registration of the 3rd respondent was on account of two amendments carried out by the 3rd respondent. The 1st amendment was on the basis of an application submitted for changing the name of the firm from “Brinda Metal Mart" to “MRT Metal Mart." As far as the said amendment is concerned, I do not find any illegality, as the appropriate person who has the right over the establishment, can very well choose its name as per his wishes. If at all, the petitioner has any grievance with respect to the using of the name, which was originally used by the father of the petitioner as well as the 3rd and 5th respondents, it is for the petitioner to invoke the civil remedies available, and under no circumstances, it could be a reason to interfere with the amendment permitted by the statutory authorities under the CGST Act. Therefore, the amendment, by which, the name of the 3rd respondent establishment was changed to MRT Metal Mart, is legally sustainable. 31. The only dispute could be with respect to the 2 nd amendment brought in, by which the addition of certain business places were made in the certificate of registration. The said amendment was carried as per Ext.R3(e). All the observations referred to above were with respect to the said amendment as observed above, as it is evident that the said amendment was permitted, only acting upon Exts.P3 and P4 documents, which were found to be not legally sustainable consistently by the 1st and 2nd respondents in Exts.P6, P10, and P11 orders. Therefore, in the light of the observations made above, the amendment dated 03.12.2021, by which the addition of the business places was made, has to be treated as not proper. 32. The consequence of the aforesaid findings is that, the final conclusion arrived at by the 2nd respondent regarding the interference in the order setting aside the cancellation of registration, while issuing Ext. P11, does not warrant any interference. However, this Court is of the view that, the 2nd respondent appellate authority should not have confined the powers vested upon him in setting aside the order of cancellation alone. Since the 2nd respondent came to a definite conclusion that the amendment based on Ext.P3 and P4 was not legally sustainable, appropriate directions should have been issued to set aside the said amendment. In this case, such a course was not adopted by the 2nd respondent, for the reason that, there is no specific power vested upon the said authority to interfere with the order allowing the amendment of registration. However, this Court has already found that when it is found that, permitting the amendment of registration is illegal, on the basis of fraud or mistake, the authority is vested with the power to have a re-look on the matter, as the order allowing the amendment would be an illegal order. Therefore, the 2nd respondent ought to have issued a direction to that effect. In such circumstances, to that extent, a modification is necessary. 33. Even while arriving at the said conclusion, some clarifications with regard to the observations made by this Court are to be made. Therefore, the 2nd respondent ought to have issued a direction to that effect. In such circumstances, to that extent, a modification is necessary. 33. Even while arriving at the said conclusion, some clarifications with regard to the observations made by this Court are to be made. This is particularly because, the rights of the parties over the properties, which are the subject matter of the amendment of registration, are now pending before the competent Civil Court. The right of the 3rd respondent to carry on the business is also a subject matter of the said litigation. Ext.R3(g) order passed by the Civil Court would indicate that the prima facie case on such rights was found in favour of the 3rd respondent, after evaluating the factual aspects of the matter in detail. Thus, the right of the 3rd respondent to continue the business activities in relation to the establishment is recognized for the time being and would be subject to the final outcome of the original suit. Therefore, the 3rd respondent will have to be given some protection so as to ensure that the said respondent is able to enjoy the fruits of the orders passed by the Civil Court, which are now in existence. Moreover, some clarifications also will have to be made with respect to the observations made by this Court on the question of fraud and misstatement while relying upon Exts. P3 and P4 documents for the purpose of affecting the amendment of the registration. 34. In the counter affidavit, the 3rd respondent has offered an explanation that, it was a mistake on the part of the Accountant who prepared the said document, and since the said documents were signed by the 4th respondent, who is the wife of the deceased, immediately after the death of her husband, the anomaly did not come to her notice. Apart from the above, the questions regarding the rights of the parties are now pending before the Civil Court. Therefore, it is hereby clarified that, none of the observations made by this Court would affect the contentions of either of the parties, while adjudicating the inter se rights of the parties in respect of the properties in question. Apart from the above, the questions regarding the rights of the parties are now pending before the Civil Court. Therefore, it is hereby clarified that, none of the observations made by this Court would affect the contentions of either of the parties, while adjudicating the inter se rights of the parties in respect of the properties in question. It is also relevant to note in this regard that, the observations made by this Court with regard to the circumstances under which Exts.P3 and P4 were relied on by the 3rd respondent, are based on the findings entered into the statutory authorities in Exts.P6, P10, and P11. To be precise, this Court has not entered into any finding on the question of fraud or misstatement, and instead, this Court simply acted upon the findings in Exts. P6, P10, and P11 with respect to the same. 35. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following observations and findings. (a) The order allowing the amendment on 03.12.2024 as evidenced by Ext.R3(e) shall stand quashed, as the said order was passed, only because of the reason that, Exts.P3 and P4, which are the documents based on which such amendment was allowed, were found to be not legally sustainable by the 1st and 2nd respondents, in Exts.P6, P10, and P11. (b) This would mean that, the original registration of the 3 rd respondent, as amended as per Ext.R3(d), will remain in force and the interference is only on the amendment affected as per Ext.R3(e), on 03.12.2021 with respect to the addition of the business places. (c) The order setting aside the amendment affected on 03.12.2021, and the observations made in this judgment, will not preclude the 3 rd respondent from submitting a fresh amendment application, under Section 28 of the CGST Act, on the basis of a proper documents including the orders passed by the Civil Court in the litigation pending between the parties. In case, any such application is submitted within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered by the appropriate authority after giving an opportunity of hearing the petitioner and the other legal heirs of Sri.Natarajan and appropriate orders thereon shall be passed. In case, any such application is submitted within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered by the appropriate authority after giving an opportunity of hearing the petitioner and the other legal heirs of Sri.Natarajan and appropriate orders thereon shall be passed. (d) Since Ext.R3(g) order passed by the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram permits the petitioner to operate the business, it is ordered that for a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, no coercive proceedings shall be initiated against the petitioner based on the orders passed by this Court.