Bhawani Textile Thro Proprietor Jayesh Soni VS The Assistant Commissioner

In this writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks several reliefs from the respondents. Firstly, they request the issuance of a writ or mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, to the first, second, and third respondents, urging them to allow the revocation of the cancellation of recognition. Secondly, they seek an order or direction from the same respondents to permit the petitioner to avail credit of Rs. 30,01,237/-, which was inadvertently reversed by mistake. Additionally, the petitioner asks for the issuance of any other relief deemed fit and proper by the Hon’ble Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. Finally, the petitioner requests that costs of and incidental to this application be paid by the respondents.

In this writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks several reliefs from the court. Firstly, they request the issuance of a writ or mandamus, or any other appropriate legal remedy, directed towards the first, second, and third respondents. This is aimed at compelling them to allow the revocation of the cancellation of recognition.

Secondly, the petitioner seeks an order or direction from the court to the same respondents to rectify an inadvertent mistake that resulted in the reversal of a credit amounting to Rs. 30,01,237/-.

Furthermore, the petitioner asks the court to grant any other relief it deems suitable based on the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. This includes but is not limited to issuing additional orders, directions, or writs.

Lastly, the petitioner requests that the respondents bear the costs incurred during this legal process.

During the proceedings, Dr. Avinash Poddar, the counsel representing the petitioner, presented the case before the court.

The present writ application, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks various reliefs from the court. Firstly, the applicant requests the issuance of a writ or mandamus, or any appropriate order or direction, to the concerned authorities (Respondent No.1, Respondent No.2, and Respondent No.3) to allow the revocation of the cancellation of recognition. Secondly, the applicant seeks an order or direction to these authorities to permit the applicant to avail credit amounting to Rs.30,01,237/-, which was inadvertently reversed due to a mistake. Additionally, the applicant prays for any other relief deemed fit by the Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice, and for costs and incidental expenses to be borne by the respondents.

During the proceedings, Dr. Avinash Poddar, representing the applicant, presented arguments before the court. The pleadings in the writ application indicate that the consultant of the applicant mistakenly applied for cancellation in Form REG-16 on 06.07.2020. Dr. Poddar asserts that the consultant has admitted to this error through an affidavit. However, despite the inadvertent nature of the application, an order for cancellation was issued by Respondent No.2 on 07.07.2020. Upon receipt of this cancellation order, the applicant observed that the balance in the electronic credit ledger had been reversed via GSTR 3B.

Overall, the writ application seeks relief from the court due to an inadvertent mistake leading to the cancellation of recognition and the reversal of credit balance. Dr. Poddar’s arguments aim to rectify the situation and reinstate the applicant’s rights in accordance with the law.

The writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks several reliefs from the court. Firstly, it requests the issuance of a writ or mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction to the respondents, specifically respondent No.1, respondent No.2, and respondent No.3, to allow the revocation of the cancellation of recognition. Secondly, it seeks an order, direction, or writ from the same respondents to permit the petitioner to avail credit of Rs.30,01,237/-, which was reversed inadvertently due to a mistake. Thirdly, it asks for any other relief that the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper based on the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. Lastly, it demands the award of costs and incidental expenses to be paid by the respondents.

During the proceedings, Dr. Avinash Poddar, representing the writ applicant, presented their case. It is evident from the submissions made in the writ application that an error occurred on 06.07.2020, when the consultant of the writ applicant inadvertently applied for cancellation in Form REG-16. Dr. Poddar asserts that the consultant has acknowledged this mistake through an affidavit. However, despite the inadvertent nature of the cancellation application, an order for cancellation dated 07.07.2020 was issued by respondent No.2. Subsequently, upon receiving the cancellation order, the writ applicant noted that the balance available in the electronic credit ledger had been reversed through GSTR 3B.

In light of these circumstances, the writ applicant filed an application dated 12.07.2020 under Section 30 of the CGST Act, seeking the revocation of the cancellation of registration. However, since there was no response from the concerned authority, a second application was submitted on 21.11.2020, as evidenced by Annexure-H (page-37 of the writ application).

The writ application essentially seeks relief from the court due to an inadvertent mistake leading to the cancellation of recognition and the reversal of credit. The applicant asserts that they have taken necessary steps to rectify the situation by filing revocation applications, but the lack of response from the authorities has prompted this legal recourse.

In this writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks several reliefs from the court. Firstly, they request the issuance of a writ or mandamus, or any appropriate order or direction, to the respondents, urging them to allow the revocation of the cancellation of recognition. Additionally, they seek an order or direction to permit the petitioner to avail themselves of a credit of Rs.30,01,237/-, which was inadvertently reversed by mistake. The petitioner also asks the court to issue any other relief deemed fit and proper in the circumstances, along with costs incurred in this application.

During the hearing, Dr. Avinash Poddar, representing the petitioner, argued the case. The crux of the matter lies in an inadvertent application for cancellation made by the petitioner’s consultant on 06.07.2020, using Form REG-16. While the consultant acknowledged this error through an affidavit, the actual cancellation order dated 07.07.2020 was issued by respondent No.2. Upon receiving this cancellation order, the petitioner discovered that the balance in their electronic credit ledger had been reversed via GSTR 3B.

Consequently, on 12.07.2020, the petitioner submitted an application under Section 30 of the CGST Act, seeking the revocation of the cancellation of registration. As there was no response from the concerned authority, a second application was filed on 21.11.2020. Dr. Poddar emphasizes that, despite these efforts, no decision has been communicated regarding the revocation of registration cancellation. This delay has resulted in the petitioner’s inability to utilize the credit of Rs.30,01,237/-, which was erroneously reversed.

In summary, the petitioner seeks judicial intervention to rectify the cancellation of recognition and enable them to regain access to the credit wrongly reversed. They argue that the delay in decision-making by the authorities has caused substantial prejudice to their rights and interests under the CGST Act.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: