Maa Sharda Constuction Company  VS  Union Of India

In this legal matter, Shri Gajendra Singh Thakur, who serves as the learned counsel for the respondents, plays a central role. The case revolves around a writ petition filed by the petitioner, challenging an order dated 03.12.2019 (referred to as Annexure-P/4), which pertains to the cancellation of the petitioner’s registration under the Central Goods and Service Tax. The cancellation was carried out under the authority of Section 29 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, in conjunction with Rule 22 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017. Thakur’s representation and arguments likely aim to defend the legality and validity of this cancellation order, thereby upholding the actions taken by the proper officer in accordance with the relevant provisions of the CGST Act and Rules. Thakur’s role may involve presenting legal justifications, supporting evidence, and possibly refuting any claims made by the petitioner challenging the cancellation of registration.

In this case, Shri Gajendra Singh Thakur, who represents the respondents, is defending an order of cancellation of registration dated 03.12.2019, which pertains to the petitioner’s registration under the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act. The cancellation was carried out by the proper officer under Section 29 of the CGST Act, in conjunction with Rule 22 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules (CGST Rules).

The petitioner has initiated a writ petition to challenge this order of cancellation. The crux of the matter revolves around the legality and validity of the cancellation of the petitioner’s registration under the CGST Act. It seems that the petitioner is disputing the grounds on which the cancellation was based and seeks legal recourse to contest the decision.

Shri Gajendra Singh Thakur, as the learned counsel for the respondents, is likely to present arguments supporting the validity of the cancellation order. This might include providing evidence or legal reasoning to justify the actions taken by the proper officer in cancelling the petitioner’s registration. Thakur would potentially counter any claims made by the petitioner regarding procedural irregularities or violations of the CGST Act and CGST Rules.

The outcome of this case will likely depend on the interpretation of relevant provisions of the CGST Act and CGST Rules, as well as the presentation of evidence and arguments by both parties. Shri Gajendra Singh Thakur’s role is crucial in defending the respondents’ position and ensuring that the cancellation order is upheld in the eyes of the law.

In his representation, Shri Gajendra Singh Thakur, the counsel representing the respondents, outlines the essence of the case where the petitioner has filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of their registration under the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The cancellation was executed through an order dated 03.12.2019 by the proper officer, citing Section 29 of the CGST Act along with Rule 22 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017.

The crux of the matter revolves around the petitioner’s failure to file an application for revocation of the cancellation within the stipulated timeframe before the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner. This omission is a key point highlighted by Thakur, indicating that the petitioner did not adhere to the prescribed procedural requirements. Thakur underscores the significance of this failure in his argument, suggesting that the petitioner’s non-compliance with the regulatory framework outlined in the CGST Act and Rules strengthens the case for upholding the cancellation of registration.

By emphasizing the legal obligation to follow the prescribed procedures, Thakur aims to bolster the respondents’ position and potentially sway the court’s decision in favor of maintaining the cancellation of registration. Through this approach, Thakur strategically presents the argument that the petitioner’s non-adherence to regulatory requirements undermines their case for challenging the cancellation order

In the writ petition under consideration, the petitioner is contesting the cancellation of their registration under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) through an order dated 03.12.2019. This cancellation was executed by the proper officer under Section 29 of the CGST Act in conjunction with Rule 22 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (CGST Rules).

The essence of the petitioner’s argument revolves around challenging the aforementioned cancellation order. However, it’s noted that instead of pursuing available remedial action under Section 30(1) of the CGST Act, the petitioner opted to seek revocation of the registration cancellation through the appellate authority.

The court or adjudicating authority, upon reviewing the case, finds this approach legally flawed. It asserts that the petitioner’s failure to pursue the prescribed course of action, i.e., applying for revocation before the proper officer as mandated by Section 30(1) of the CGST Act, renders their appeal for revocation unsustainable.

Consequently, the court dismisses the petitioner’s appeal, upholding the decision to reject the request for revocation of registration cancellation. Thus, the appellate process concludes with the dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner.

In the writ petition under consideration, the petitioner is challenging the cancellation of their registration under the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, as per the order dated 03.12.2019. The cancellation was carried out by the proper officer under Section 29 of the CGST Act, read with Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017.

The crux of the matter lies in the petitioner’s failure to file an application for revocation of cancellation within the stipulated time frame before the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner. The decision-maker found that the petitioner did not adhere to the prescribed timeline for such an application.

Although the petitioner’s counsel argued for the court’s intervention in challenging the cancellation order, it was countered by Shri Gajendra Singh Thakur, learned counsel representing the Central Goods and Services, the contesting respondent. Thakur contended that the Commissioner rightly dismissed the appeal because, according to Section 30 of the CGST Act, the petitioner’s remedy for revocation of cancellation lies with the proper officer. This remedy entails applying for revocation within thirty days from the date of service of the cancellation order, as per the prescribed procedure.

In essence, the argument revolves around procedural compliance and the proper channels for seeking redressal under the CGST Act. While the petitioner seeks relief through the writ petition, the contesting respondent maintains that the statutory provisions dictate a different course of action for addressing the cancellation of registration.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: