Case Title | Atlafbhai Rajabali Dosani, Prop. Of M/S Gurukrupaenterprise Vs Superintendent, Ghatak 82(Amreli), Ragne 19, Division 9 |
Court | Ahmedabad High court |
Honorable judges | Justice Sonia Gokani Justice Mauna M. Bhatt |
Citation | 2022 (11) GSTPanacea 545 HC Ahmedabad R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11265 of 2022 |
Judgement Date | 30-November-2022 |
The petitioner in this case is seeking relief from the High Court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. They wish to challenge two specific orders: one dated January 31, 2022, issued by the Commissioner (Appeals), GST & Excise, and another dated March 18, 2021, issued by the Superintendent of Ghatak 82, Range-19, Division-9, both under Section 29(2) of the Central Goods & Services Act, 2017 (“the Act”). Additionally, the petitioner aims to contest the cancellation of… (the details of the cancellation are not provided).
It’s likely that the petitioner believes these orders were issued unfairly or unlawfully and seeks the Court’s intervention to quash or set them aside. This invokes the Court’s “extraordinary jurisdiction” under Article 226, which empowers it to issue writs, orders, or directions for the enforcement of fundamental rights or for any other purpose.
The specific grounds for challenging these orders are not outlined in the summary, but they could include allegations of procedural irregularities, violation of legal principles, or misapplication of the law. The petitioner may argue that their rights or interests have been infringed upon by these orders and seek relief accordingly.
Overall, the petitioner is invoking the Court’s authority to review and potentially overturn administrative decisions that they deem unjust or unlawful under the provisions of the Central Goods & Services Act, 2017.
The petitioner in this case is seeking relief from the Court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, aiming to nullify two orders and the cancellation of registration. The orders in question were issued by the Commissioner (Appeals), GST & Excise, and the Superintendent, Ghatak 82, Range-19, Division-9, under section 29(2) of the Central Goods & Services Act, 2017, as well as the cancellation of registration through a show cause notice dated 22.06.2020, issued under Rule 22 of the Central Goods & Services Rules.
The petitioner, a contractor providing construction services, asserts that due to being out of business, they failed to file returns after September 2018. Their representative also believed that since there were no outward supplies, return filing was unnecessary. However, on 22.06.2020, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice under Rule 22 read with section 29(2)(c) of the Act, citing failure to file returns continuously for six months. Although this notice was received on the portal, the petitioner’s former consultant did not communicate it to them and ceased their engagement around the same time.
Continuing with the petition, the petitioner contends that they were unable to respond to the show cause notice due to their former consultant’s actions. They argue that they were not informed of the notice and thus could not take any action. They also emphasize their compliance with tax laws before the cessation of their business activities. Consequently, they seek the Court’s intervention to set aside the orders and the cancellation of their registration, citing procedural irregularities and lack of opportunity to respond to the show cause notice.
The petitioner in this case is seeking the intervention of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge and nullify two specific orders: one dated January 31, 2022, issued by the Commissioner (Appeals), GST & Excise, and another dated March 18, 2021, issued by the Superintendent, Ghatak 82, Range-19, Division-9, under section 29(2) of the Central Goods & Services Act, 2017. Additionally, the petitioner aims to contest the cancellation of their registration, which was initiated through a show cause notice dated June 22, 2020, issued under Rule 22 of the Central Goods & Services Rules.
The petitioner, identified as a contractor providing construction services and registered under section 12 of the Act, asserts that due to a period of inactivity in their business, they failed to file returns after September 2018. The individual responsible for handling their tax affairs also overlooked the necessity of filing returns due to the assumption that zero outward supply negated the need for filing. Consequently, when the petitioner was served with a show cause notice on June 22, 2020, regarding the continuous six-month non-filing of returns, they were unaware as their consultant at the time did not relay this information before departing from their assignment.
The petitioner’s registration was subsequently cancelled on March 18, 2021. In response, the petitioner lodged an appeal on November 19, 2021, under section 107 of the Act. They presented written submissions and participated in a personal hearing via video conference on December 22, 2021. However, the appeal was dismissed on January 31, 2022, with the observation that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have filed all returns relevant to the period leading up to the registration’s cancellation. Subsequently, the petitioner complied by filing returns from September 2018 to March 2021 along with late fees, and also made a self-assessment payment of Rs. 2,94,520 in March 2022. Additionally, a representation for the restoration of registration was submitted on April 19, 2022.
In summary, the petitioner is contesting the legality of the orders issued against them, arguing that their failure to file returns was due to circumstances beyond their control, and they have since taken corrective action by filing pending returns and making necessary payments. They seek relief from the Court to quash the aforementioned orders and restore their registration.
The petitioner in this case is seeking relief from the High Court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. They aim to quash two specific orders: one dated 31.01.2022 by the Commissioner (Appeals), GST & Excise, and another dated 18.03.2021 by the Superintendent, Ghatak 82, Range-19, Division-9, both passed under section 29(2) of the Central Goods & Services Act, 2017 (referred to as “the Act”). Additionally, they seek to challenge the cancellation of their registration, which was initiated through a show cause notice dated 22.06.2020 under Rule 22 of the Central Goods & Services Rules.
The petitioner operates as a contractor providing construction services and is registered under section 12 of the Act. They argue that due to being out of business, they failed to file returns after September 2018. Moreover, their representative was under the impression that since there were zero outward supplies, filing returns was unnecessary. Despite being served a show cause notice on 22.06.2020 for not filing returns continuously for six months, the petitioner claims they were not informed by their consultant, who had left around the same time. Consequently, their registration was cancelled on 18.03.2021.
In response, the petitioner appealed to respondent No.2 on 19.11.2021 under section 107 of the Act. They provided written submissions and participated in a personal hearing via video conference on 22.12.2021. However, the appeal was dismissed on 31.01.2022, with the observation that it was the petitioner’s obligation to file all returns up to the date of registration cancellation. The petitioner subsequently filed returns from September 2018 to March 2021 along with late fees, and self-assessed and paid Rs. 2,94,520/- in March 2022. They also made a representation on 19.04.2022 for restoration of their registration, citing the filing of all outstanding returns. However, receiving no response, they are now before the Court seeking to challenge the impugned orders.
In summary, the petitioner argues that they have fulfilled their obligations by filing all overdue returns and paying necessary fees, and hence, their registration should be restored. They request the Court to quash the aforementioned orders and reinstate their registration.
Download PDF:
For Reference Visit:
Read Another Case Law:
GST Case Law: