Case Title | Ennkay Timbers And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others |
Court | Allahabad High Court |
Honorable Judges | Justice PIYUSH AGRAWAL |
Citation | 2023 (10) GSTPanacea 253 HC Allahabad WRIT TAX No. – 1208 of 2022 |
Judgment Date | 11-October-2023 |
The case before the court involves a Writ Tax petition brought forth by the petitioners, represented by Ms. Pragya Pandey, against the State-respondents, represented by Sri Ravi Shankar Pandey. This court has taken up the matter due to the non-functionality of the G.S.T. Tribunal in Uttar Pradesh, as declared in a Gazette notification dated 14.09.2023 by the Central Government.
The petitioners challenge an order dated 18.09.2021, which resulted in the cancellation of the registration of petitioner no.1’s firm. This cancellation was subsequently affirmed by an order dated 4.8.2022 issued by respondent no.2, rejecting petitioner no.1’s appeal.
Providing context, petitioner no.2 is the sole proprietor of M/s Ennkay Timbers (petitioner no.1), holding GSTIN No.09BZAPK7818J1Z0 under the Goods and Services Tax Act (GST Act). The business primarily deals with timber. However, petitioner no.2 failed to file GST returns for six consecutive months. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued against the petitioner firm, proposing the cancellation of GST registration under Section 29(2)(c) of the GST Act. Unfortunately, petitioner no.2 couldn’t respond within the specified time frame mentioned in the show cause notice dated 04.09.2021, citing mental exhaustion after two… [text ends]
The case revolves around a writ petition filed by the petitioners, seeking relief after the cancellation of their firm’s registration under the GST Act. The petitioner no.1’s firm had its registration cancelled on 18.09.2021, leading to subsequent legal actions, including a Writ Tax No. 757 of 2022, which was dismissed on 27.05.2023, and an appeal that was rejected on 4.8.2022.
The petitioners’ counsel argues that the petitioner no.2, due to personal losses including the death of her mother and sister, failed to file GST returns for six consecutive months. The firm managed to file returns until June 2021 but couldn’t do so from July to August 2021. Similarly, 3B returns weren’t filed from March to August 2021. The petitioner no.2 acknowledges the tax liability and expresses readiness to clear dues with interest in installments as directed by the court. However, due to the cancellation of the firm’s registration, they cannot deposit tax online until the registration is restored.
The petitioners’ counsel cites judgments from Kerala High Court and Guwahati High Court to support their case and seeks relief through the writ petition.
On the other hand, the standing counsel argues that the petitioner no.2’s admission of not filing returns for more than six months justifies the action taken against the firm. They assert that despite engaging in business activities and collecting GST from customers, the petitioner no.2 failed to deposit the tax as per the law, leading to the cancellation of registration.
Upon reviewing the records, the court acknowledges that the petitioner no.1 was registered under the GST Act but notes the unfortunate circumstances leading to the petitioner no.2’s inability to fulfill tax obligations and file returns. The court also takes into account the petitioners’ willingness to clear dues with interest.
In conclusion, the court considers the circumstances surrounding the petitioner no.2’s inability to comply with tax obligations and expresses sympathy for their losses. However, the court’s decision regarding the petition remains undisclosed in the provided text.
Donwload PDF:
Ennkay Timbers And Another
For Reference Visit:
Read Another Case Law:
GST Case Law