Case Title | M.S. Constructions vs Union of India |
court | Telangana High Court |
Honorable judgwes | Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy |
citation | 2022 (10) GSTPanacea 504 HC Telangana WRIT PETITION NO: 39849 OF 2022 |
Judgement Date | 29-October-2022 |
The case at hand involves a writ petition brought forth under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, represented by Mr. V. Raghunadh, seeking the annulment of an order dated January 10, 2022, issued by respondent No. 4, along with the order-in-appeal dated October 1, 2022, issued by respondent No. 3. The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in construction and allied activities, became registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, following its enactment, thereby acquiring Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration.
During the proceedings, arguments were presented by Mr. V. Raghunadh on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. B. Mukherjee representing respondent No. 1, and Ms. Sapna Reddy representing respondents No. 2 to 4. The core contention of the petitioner revolves around the aforementioned orders issued by the respondents, which the petitioner seeks to invalidate through this writ petition.
The petitioner’s business activities fall within the realm of construction and allied sectors, implying a significant reliance on GST registration for compliance with statutory requirements and operational continuity. The petitioner’s registration under the GST framework underscores its adherence to the regulatory framework established by the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
In light of the petitioner’s arguments, it appears that the orders in question have raised issues or concerns that the petitioner perceives as detrimental to its interests or operational efficiency. This is evident from the petitioner’s decision to challenge these orders through legal recourse, utilizing the provisions available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the High Court to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights or for any other purpose within its jurisdiction.
The involvement of learned counsels representing both the petitioner and the respondents suggests a contested legal terrain where competing interpretations of statutory provisions or factual circumstances are being advanced. Mr. V. Raghunadh, as counsel for the petitioner, likely articulated arguments aimed at demonstrating the legal or factual basis for quashing the impugned orders. Similarly, Mr. B. Mukherjee and Ms. Sapna Reddy, representing the respondents, presumably defended the validity and legality of the orders under challenge.
Given the complexity inherent in tax-related matters and the legal intricacies associated with statutory interpretation, the outcome of this writ petition is contingent upon the court’s assessment of the arguments put forth by both parties, as well as its interpretation of relevant legal provisions and precedents. The court’s decision will likely hinge on the merit of the petitioner’s contentions, the validity of the impugned orders, and the overarching principles of justice and equity governing the adjudication of such disputes.
The case revolves around a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in construction and allied activities. The petitioner seeks the quashing of two orders: one dated 10.01.2022 passed by respondent No.4, and the other being an order-in-appeal dated 10.10.2022 passed by respondent No.3.
The petitioner had registered itself under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and obtained Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration No. 36ABIFM6847J1ZP, with validity from 06.07.2018.
Respondent No.4 issued a show cause notice dated 02.12.2021 to the petitioner, alleging failure to file GST returns continuously for six months. The petitioner responded to this notice on 02.01.2022. However, despite the response, respondent No.4 proceeded to cancel the petitioner’s GST registration on 10.01.2022, citing the failure to file returns for the last six months. Dissatisfied with this decision, the petitioner appealed to respondent No.3. Unfortunately, the appeal was dismissed by an order-in-appeal dated 10.10.2022.
The crux of the matter in this writ petition is not novel. Similar grievances have been raised in previous writ petitions where the court has intervened, overturning the cancellation of GST registrations as well as the appellate orders.
In essence, the petitioner contends that the cancellation of its GST registration was unjustified, particularly given its response to the show cause notice. The petitioner seeks relief from the court, urging for the quashing of the aforementioned orders passed by respondent No.4 and respondent No.3. This case underscores the significance of adherence to procedural requirements in matters concerning GST registration and the necessity for fair consideration of responses provided by concerned parties.
The case pertains to a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a partnership firm engaged in construction and allied activities. The petitioner seeks to challenge two orders: one passed by respondent No.4 on 10.01.2022 and the other an order-in-appeal dated 18.10.2022 passed by respondent No.3.
The petitioner had registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and obtained GST registration on 25.03.2020, valid from 06.07.2018. However, respondent No.4 issued a show cause notice on 02.12.2021, citing the petitioner’s failure to file GST returns for six consecutive months as grounds for potential cancellation of GST registration.
Although the petitioner submitted a reply on 02.01.2022, respondent No.4 proceeded to cancel the GST registration on 10.01.2022. The petitioner then appealed this decision to respondent No.3, but the appeal was dismissed on 18.10.2022.
The writ petition argues that similar cases in the past have seen intervention from the court, resulting in the cancellation of GST registrations being overturned and remanded for fresh decisions. Therefore, the petitioner seeks similar relief.
Upon consideration, the court sets aside the orders of 10.01.2022 and 18.10.2022, remanding the matter to respondent No.4 for a fresh decision within three months. The petitioner is granted the opportunity to submit all required returns during this period.
The writ petition is thus disposed of, and any pending miscellaneous applications are closed, with no order as to costs.
Download PDF:
For Reference Visit:
Read Another Case Law:
GST Case Law: