Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.
Case Title | M/S Bheema Construction Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes |
Court | Karnataka High Court |
Honorable judges | Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar |
Citation | 2022 (12) GSTPanacea 559 HC Karnataka WRIT PETITION No.24563 OF 2022(T-RES) |
Judgement Date | 15- December-2022 |
The petitioners have submitted a plea seeking specific legal actions in response to a particular order, aiming at rectifying what they perceive as an injustice. Their requests are twofold: first, they seek the issuance of a writ, specifically a writ of Mandamus or any other fitting writ, to annul a specified order (No.ZA290322210147X dated 29.03.2022) issued by respondent No.1, and to direct respondent No.2 to reverse the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration, as indicated in Annexure-C. Second, they appeal for any additional orders or directives that the court deems appropriate given the circumstances, in the pursuit of justice.
During the proceedings, both the counsel for the petitioners and the Advocate General for the respondents presented their arguments, and the court examined the available evidence.
The petitioner’s counsel reiterated the contentions outlined in the Memorandum of Petition and referred to accompanying documents. They highlighted that on 29.03.2022, respondent No.1 had issued an order revoking or canceling the petitioner’s GST registration. However, due to valid reasons presented as bonafide and unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner was unable to file an appeal within the stipulated timeframe.
The crux of the petitioner’s plea seems to revolve around the cancellation of their GST registration and their subsequent inability to appeal within the prescribed period. They argue that extenuating circumstances prevented them from meeting the appeal deadline, thereby warranting intervention from the court to rectify the situation.
The petitioners in this case have sought several reliefs, primarily to quash an order issued by respondent No.1, dated March 29, 2022, revoking their GST registration. They also request direction to respondent No.2 to revoke the cancellation and potentially grant other orders in the interest of justice.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel reiterated various contentions from the petition and presented documents supporting their case. It was argued that the cancellation of GST registration on March 29, 2022, prevented the petitioner from appealing within the stipulated time due to genuine reasons. Additionally, it was highlighted that the petitioner had paid all taxes up to the cancellation date and even for subsequent periods. Certain amounts had been deposited with the relevant authorities by the petitioner.
To challenge the impugned order and seek the reinstatement of GST registration, the petitioner approached the court with the present petition.
The petitioner’s counsel relied on several judgments to support their arguments, including:
1. Deepak Vasude Asrani Chugh HUF v/s Joint Commissioner of GST Appeals –II, Bangalore Superintendent of Central Tax Range and -4, Bengaluru – 2022 (9) TMI 479.
2.Aarcity Builders Private Limited, M/s.Nand Spark Shine Company, M/s. VSL Security Services Pvt. Ltd. and Orion Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. v/s Union of India and Others, State of Haryana and Others – 2021 (12) TMI 890.
3.Uchit N Sheth for the Petitioner v/s Mr. Priyank Lidha for the Respondent – 2022 (4) TMI 751.
4.M/s. Neo Built through its Proprietor v/s ETO-cum-Proper Officer and Another – 2022 (6) TMI 463.
These judgments likely provide precedents or legal arguments supporting the petitioner’s case. The petitioner seeks relief from the court in the form of quashing the order and reinstating their GST registration, highlighting their compliance with tax obligations and presenting justifications for their inability to appeal within the specified period.
The petitioners in this case have filed a petition seeking several reliefs, primarily to quash an order issued by respondent No.1 on March 29, 2022, which revoked the petitioner’s GST registration, and to direct respondent No.2 to revoke the cancellation. The petitioners also request any other orders or directions deemed fit by the court in the interest of justice.
During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner reiterated various contentions mentioned in the petition memorandum and referred to documents provided by the petitioner. It was highlighted that the revocation of GST registration on March 29, 2022, prevented the petitioner from filing an appeal within the prescribed period due to genuine reasons. Additionally, it was emphasized that the petitioner had paid all taxes up to the cancellation date and for subsequent periods, with certain amounts deposited before the relevant authorities. The petitioner approached the court aggrieved by the cancellation and seeking its revocation.
In support of their argument, the petitioner’s counsel cited several judgments, including cases involving disputes related to GST registration.
On the contrary, the respondents’ counsel argued that the petition lacked merit and should be dismissed.
Upon reviewing the material on record and considering Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, it became apparent that the petitioner had the option to appeal against the order canceling their GST registration before the Appellate Authority. The court noted that although the petitioner could seek revocation of cancellation under Section 30 of the CGST Act, this did not render the appeal option unavailable. Therefore, the court found the respondent’s decision to summarily dismiss the appeal on the grounds of the availability of revocation remedy contradictory to the provisions of the CGST Act. Consequently, the court deemed it necessary to set aside the impugned order.
The petitioners in this case have requested the court to grant two reliefs: firstly, to issue a writ to quash an order passed by respondent No.1 which revoked the petitioner’s GST registration, and secondly, to provide any other order or direction deemed fit by the court in the interest of justice.
Upon hearing arguments from both the petitioner’s counsel and the learned AGA for the respondents, and after reviewing the evidence presented, the court noted that on 29.03.2022, respondent No.1 had revoked the petitioner’s GST registration. The petitioner, due to genuine reasons, was unable to appeal within the prescribed period. The petitioner had also paid all taxes up to the cancellation date and deposited a certain amount with the authorities.
The petitioner relies on several judgments to support their contentions. On the other hand, the respondent’s counsel argues that the petition lacks merit and should be dismissed.
Upon examination of the material on record and Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, the court found that the petitioner has the right to appeal against the order canceling their GST registration under Section 107. Merely because the petitioner could seek revocation under Section 30 of the CGST Act does not render the appeal option invalid. Therefore, the court deemed the dismissal of the appeal by respondent No.1 as contrary to the law and set it aside.
The court acknowledged the petitioner’s explanation for not seeking revocation within the stipulated period due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Considering this, the court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s claim for revocation of the cancellation order, provided outstanding taxes are paid, in accordance with the law.
Download PDF:
For Reference Visit:
Read Another Case Law:
GST Case Law: