Dilipkumar Chandulal VS State Of Gujarat

The petitioners seek relief from this Hon’ble Court regarding the cancellation of their registration certificate, which they contend was unjustified. They request the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any appropriate order to quash and set aside the cancellation order, restoring their registration certificate for the period from April 1, 2018, to March 31, 2019. Alternatively, they seek a writ of mandamus or any appropriate order to direct the respondents to refund the tax amount paid by the petitioners due to a glitch in the GST portal, despite their deregistration. They further request the issuance of a fresh registration certificate for the aforementioned period to enable them to deposit tax payments. Pending notice, admission, and final hearing of the petition, the petitioners urge the Hon’ble Court to direct the respondents to immediately restore their registration

The petitioners in this case seek relief from the Hon’ble Court regarding the cancellation of their registration certificate. They present several requests:

A. They petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorari, or a similar appropriate writ, to quash the order cancelling their registration certificate, requesting its restoration for the period from April 1, 2018, to March 31, 2019.

B. Alternatively, they seek a writ of mandamus or similar writ directing the respondents to refund the tax paid by the petitioners due to a glitch in the GST portal. Despite deregistration, the portal allowed tax payment. They also request a fresh registration certificate for the aforementioned period, enabling them to deposit tax once again.

C. They request interim relief, asking the Court to direct the respondents to immediately restore their registration certificate for the stated period.

D. They seek ex parte ad interim relief in line with their request for interim relief.

E. Lastly, they ask for any further relief the Court deems appropriate in the interest of justice.

The Court previously heard arguments from both parties on March 3, 2022. Mr. Uchit N. Sheth represented the petitioners, while Mr. Kathiriya, the learned AGP, represented the respondents

The petitioners seek relief from the court regarding the cancellation of their GST registration certificate. They present several requests:

A. They ask for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to annul the order canceling their registration certificate and to restore it for the period from April 1, 2018, to March 31, 2019.

B. Alternatively, they request a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to direct the respondents to refund the tax paid by the petitioners due to a glitch in the GST portal. They also seek the issuance of a fresh registration certificate for the mentioned period, allowing them to deposit tax once again.

C. They seek interim relief from the court, requesting the immediate restoration of their registration certificate for the mentioned period until the final hearing.

D. They request ex parte ad interim relief in line with their previous prayer for interim relief.

E. Finally, they ask for any further relief deemed suitable by the court in the interest of justice.

The background of the case involves the inadvertent cancellation of the GST registration of the petitioners’ proprietary firm. This occurred due to a mistake made by their Chartered Accountant who intended to cancel the registration of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) but instead entered the registration number of the proprietorship. Despite the cancellation, the returns filed by the petitioners were being accepted.

On March 3, 2022, the court heard arguments from both the petitioners’ counsel and the Assistant Government Pleader (AGP) representing the respondents. The court noted the peculiar circumstances of the case and issued notice to the respondents to appear before the court on March 23, 2022. The AGP waived service of notice on behalf of the respondents and was provided with all necessary documents. The court instructed the AGP to obtain instructions from the respondents so that the matter could be disposed of efficiently on the returnable date. Finally, the court scheduled the matter to be given priority on the board on the returnable date.

Certainly! In the legal proceedings, Mr. Uchit Sheth, representing the petitioners, presented arguments while Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, representing the respondents, presented counterarguments. The session likely involved an exchange of legal viewpoints, possibly concerning a writ application or case before a court or tribunal. Both counsels would have articulated their respective positions, possibly addressing legal precedents, statutes, and relevant facts pertinent to the case. These arguments and counterarguments would have aimed at persuading the adjudicating authority to favor their client’s position. The proceedings might have covered various aspects of the case, such as legal interpretation, factual evidence, and procedural matters. Ultimately, the court or tribunal would weigh these arguments to arrive at a just decision.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: