The petitioner in this case approached the Court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash certain assessment orders (Exts.P6 and P6(a) to (e)) and a demand notice (Ext.P7). The petitioner, a registered dealer under the GST Act, was engaged in trading plywood but suffered significant losses, leading to an online application for cancellation of registration on April 29, 2019 (Ext.P3). During 2017-18, the petitioner had minimal transactions and filed returns accordingly, as evidenced by Exts.P4 and P4(a). In 2018-19, there were no business transactions, and monthly returns showing nil transactions were filed (Exts.P5 and P5(a)). The business was discontinued from April 1, 2019, and this was communicated to the Assessing Officer.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that Section 62 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 should not apply because the petitioner had already requested cancellation of registration under Section 29 of the Act. According to the proviso to Section 29(1), the registration should be suspended automatically during the pendency of the cancellation proceedings. Thus, the impugned assessment orders were deemed unsustainable. The counsel also cited Rule 21 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, which allows officers to cancel registration if a person does not conduct business from the declared place or issues invoices without supplying goods.
Conversely, Mrs. Thushara James, representing the respondent, argued that the petitioner had not been forthcoming, failing to disclose a show cause notice issued on May 14, 2019. This notice requested complete details of the business address. The GST portal indicated that the petitioner was active until September 2019, and a cancellation request submitted in January 2020 was still pending. The respondent’s counsel relied on sub-rule (3) of Rule 22 to support the case for dismissing the petition.
After hearing both sides, the Court found no merit in the petitioner’s submissions, primarily due to the non-disclosure of the show cause notice dated May 14, 2019. This omission was significant and unexplained. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. The Court emphasized that the petitioner had failed to address how and why the issuance of the show cause notice was omitted from the pleadings. The dismissal was grounded on this non-disclosure, underscoring the importance of complete and transparent pleadings in legal proceedings.
The petitioner seeks relief under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution for a writ of certiorari to quash assessment orders (Exts.P6 and P6(a) to (e)) and a demand notice (Ext.P7), claiming these are unsustainable because the petitioner is a registered dealer under the GST Act, as evidenced by Ext.P1. The petitioner, involved in plywood trading, suffered significant losses and applied for registration cancellation on 29.04.2019, as evidenced by Ext.P3 acknowledgment. For the fiscal year 2017-18, the petitioner had minimal transactions and filed returns accordingly (Exts.P4 and P4(a)). In 2018-19, there were no business transactions, and monthly returns were filed showing Nil transactions (Exts.P5 and P5(a)). The business ceased from 01.04.2019, and this was communicated to the Assessing Officer.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that Section 62 of the Central GST Act, 2017 should not apply because the petitioner had requested registration cancellation under Section 29. The proviso to Section 29(1) suspends registration automatically during pending cancellation proceedings. The impugned orders should therefore be void. The petitioner also referenced Rule 21 of the Central GST Rules, 2017, which allows cancellation if the person does not conduct business or issues invoices without supplying goods.
Conversely, Mrs. Thushara James, representing the respondent, argued that the petitioner did not disclose a show-cause notice dated 14.05.2019 from the Assessing Officer, which required business address details. The GST portal showed the petitioner was active until September 2019. In January 2020, the petitioner submitted another cancellation request, which is still pending. Mrs. James cited Rule 22(3) to support her argument for dismissing the writ petition.
Upon hearing both sides, the court found no merit in the petitioner’s arguments, particularly due to the nondisclosure of the show-cause notice dated 14.05.2019. The petitioner failed to explain the omission of this crucial information. According to Rule 22(3), the authorities should pass an order on cancellation applications within 30 days. However, the petitioner’s failure to respond to the show-cause notice invalidated the petitioner’s case. The continuous filing of monthly returns as “Nil” did not nullify the penalties imposed. The petitioner’s portal remained active, and even if no business was conducted, returns needed to be filed. The petitioner’s actions suggested an attempt to evade the stringent provisions of Section 62 regarding the assessment of non-filing returns. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition.
Download PDF:
For Reference Visit:
Read Another Case Law:
GST Case Law:
