Phoenix Rubbers VS Commercial Tax Officer

The summary you provided outlines a legal case presented in a writ petition. The petitioner seeks to challenge an order (Ext.P-3) issued by the first respondent. The prayers in the petition include quashing this order through a writ of certiorari, as well as seeking other incidental reliefs and costs associated with the proceedings.

During the hearing, legal counsels representing both the petitioner and various respondents were present. The petitioner, described as an assessee of goods and services tax, had defaulted in filing returns from May 2019 onwards due to financial difficulties. Consequently, the fourth respondent issued a notice (Ext.P-1) proposing to cancel the petitioner’s registration under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, citing the continuous non-filing of returns for six months. Subsequently, the fourth respondent passed the contested order (Ext.P-3) that is the subject of the petition.

The case presented in the Writ Petition (Civil) revolves around the petitioner’s plea to nullify the Ext.P-3 order issued by the first respondent through the issuance of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writs or directions. The petitioner also seeks additional incidental reliefs, including the cost of the proceedings.

During the hearing, legal counsels representing both the petitioner and respondents presented their arguments. The petitioner, an assessee of goods and services tax, faced financial difficulties leading to defaults in filing returns from May 2019 onwards. Subsequently, the fourth respondent issued Ext.P-1 notice proposing to cancel the petitioner’s registration under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act due to alleged non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months.

The impugned Ext.P-3 order was then issued by the fourth respondent, canceling the petitioner’s registration under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act. The petitioner argues that Section 29(2)(c) mandates cancellation of registration only in case of a continuous default of six months in filing returns. However, the petitioner contends that there was only a five-month continuous default, not meeting the statutory requirement for cancellation.

The petitioner’s counsel contends that although the fourth respondent found six months’ continuous default as of the date of Ext.P-1 notice, there was actually only five months’ continuous default, rendering the impugned order illegal and ultra vires. Furthermore, it is emphasized that the impugned Ext.P-3 order was issued on December 10, 2019, whereas on the same date, the petitioner had filed returns for May 2019, as evidenced by Ext.P-2 document.

In essence, the petitioner seeks relief from the court, arguing that the impugned order is legally flawed and should be invalidated. The case revolves around the interpretation and application of relevant provisions of the CGST Act regarding the cancellation of registration due to default in filing returns.

The petitioner, represented by counsel Harisankar V. Menon, seeks relief from an order issued by the 4th respondent, dated 10th December 2019, cancelling the petitioner’s firm’s registration under Section 29(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act. The petitioner argues that this cancellation is unjust as it was based on an alleged continuous default of six months in filing returns, whereas, according to the petitioner, there was only a five-month continuous default.

The petitioner’s financial crisis led to a failure to file returns from May 2019 onwards. Subsequently, the 4th respondent issued a notice, Ext.P-1, proposing the cancellation of registration due to non-filing of returns for six consecutive months. Following this, the impugned order, Ext.P-3, was issued, cancelling the petitioner’s registration. The petitioner contends that this cancellation is illegal and ultra vires as it doesn’t meet the requirement of a six-month continuous default, as stipulated by Sec. 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act.

Rule 22 of the CGST Rules outlines the procedure for cancellation of registration, requiring the proper officer to issue a notice to the concerned person and provide an opportunity to respond within seven working days. The reply must be furnished within the specified period. If the reply is satisfactory, proceedings are dropped, as per sub-rule (4). Sec. 39 of the CGST Act mandates the filing of returns by every registered person.

The petitioner seeks the quashing of Ext.P-3 order through a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, along with incidental reliefs, including the costs of proceedings. The counsel for the petitioner argues that since returns for May 2019 were filed on the same day as the impugned order, there was no continuous default of six months at the time of cancellation. The petitioner contends that proper procedures were not followed in issuing the cancellation order, rendering it illegal and ultra vires.

In response, Sri. Sreelal N. Warrier, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Board of Indirect Taxes, Government of India, representing additional respondents 3 & 4, and Dr. Thushara James, learned Government Pleader representing R-1 & R-2, were heard. The court must now consider the arguments presented and decide whether to grant the relief sought by the petitioner.

The case at hand involves a writ petition filed seeking the annulment of an order issued by the first respondent, which cancelled the registration of the petitioner firm under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act. The petitioner, represented by counsel, argues that the cancellation was unjustified as it was based on an incorrect interpretation of the law.

The petitioner, a taxpayer under the CGST Act, faced financial difficulties leading to a lapse in filing returns from May 2019 onwards. Subsequently, the tax authority issued a notice proposing cancellation of registration due to continuous non-filing of returns for six months, as mandated by Sec. 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act. The impugned order, Ext.P-3, was issued by the tax authority, cancelling the petitioner’s registration.

The crux of the petitioner’s argument is that while there were five months of continuous default in filing returns, the statutory requirement of six months was not met. Therefore, the cancellation was illegal and ultra vires the law. Furthermore, it’s contended that on the day of the order, the petitioner had filed returns for May 2019, which should have nullified the grounds for cancellation.

The relevant legal provisions, Sec. 29 of the CGST Act and Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, outline the conditions for cancellation of registration. Sec. 29(2)(c) specifies the grounds for cancellation, emphasizing a continuous period of six months of non-filing of returns. Rule 22 delineates the procedural aspects of cancellation, including issuance of notice and opportunity to be heard.

Additionally, Sec. 39 of the CGST Act mandates the filing of returns by registered persons, detailing the frequency and manner of filing. It underscores the obligation to furnish accurate returns within specified time frames.

In summary, the petitioner challenges the cancellation of registration on the grounds of misinterpretation of statutory provisions and procedural irregularities. The petition seeks the quashing of the impugned order and incidental reliefs, asserting that the cancellation was unjust and unlawful.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: