|
Case Title |
Siddharth Associates Vs State Tax Officer, Ghatak 103 (Gandhidham) |
|
Court |
Ahmedabad High Court |
|
Honorable judges |
Justice Sonia Gokani Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt |
|
Citation |
2023 (01) GSTPanacea 270 HC Ahmedabad R/Special Civil Application No. 141 Of 2023 |
|
Judgement Date |
11-Junuary-2023 |
The petitioner has approached the court to contest the decision of the respondent authority on two main grounds. Firstly, they argue that the cancellation of their registration lacks adherence to the principle of natural justice, as the order provided is cryptic and lacks proper reasoning. Secondly, they contest the decision of the appellate authority, asserting that it lacks the power to condone certain actions. In essence, the petitioner is challenging both the procedural fairness and the jurisdictional authority of the decisions made by the respondent.
The petitioner has brought their case before this Court, primarily contesting the actions of the respondent authority on two main grounds. Firstly, they argue that the cancellation of their registration was done in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the order provided was cryptic and lacked reasoning. Secondly, they contend that the appellate authority refused to address the merits of the case, citing its inability to condone a delay.
In terms of relief sought, the petitioner requests the following:
A. Admission of the petition by the Court. B. Granting of permission for the petition. C. Issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order to annul and revoke the order dated 22.09.2022 (Annexure ‘D’) issued by respondent No.1. D. Issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order to annul and revoke the order dated 25.03.2022 (Annexure ‘C’) issued by respondent No.2. E. Issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order directing respondent No.2 to revoke the GST registration of the petitioner with registration number 24AACCK2846B2ZZ. F. Granting of any other suitable relief as deemed fit by the Court.
The petitioner’s case hinges on the perceived procedural and substantive irregularities in the actions taken by the respondent authority, and they seek redress through the Court’s intervention to rectify the situation.
The petitioner in this case has approached the Court with two primary grievances. Firstly, they argue that the cancellation of their registration by the respondent authority was done in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the order lacked sufficient reasoning and clarity. Secondly, they contend that the appellate authority refused to address the merits of the case, citing its lack of power to condone the delay in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit.
The prayers sought by the petitioner include the admission and allowance of the petition, as well as the issuance of various writs to quash the orders of both the respondent authorities and to direct the revocation of the petitioner’s GST registration. Additionally, they seek any other relief deemed fit by the Court in the interest of justice.
The petitioner, a company engaged in civil construction work, had their GST registration (No. 24AACCK2846B2ZZ) canceled following a show cause notice issued on 29th November 2021. The impugned order confirming this cancellation was dated 25th March 2022.
Upon filing an appeal before the respondent No.2, it was rejected on the grounds of being filed 75 days after the prescribed time limit. The appellate authority stated its inability to condone the delay beyond the 30-day limit, leading to the current legal challenge.
In summary, the petitioner seeks judicial intervention to rectify what they perceive as procedural irregularities and unfair treatment in the cancellation of their GST registration. They argue that both the initial cancellation order and the rejection of their appeal lacked proper justification and adherence to legal principles.
The case before the court involves a petitioner challenging actions taken by a respondent authority on two primary grounds. Firstly, the petitioner argues that the cancellation of their registration was done in violation of natural justice principles due to the cryptic and non-reasoned nature of the order. Secondly, the appellate authority refused to decide on the merits of the case citing its lack of power to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
The prayers sought by the petitioner include the admission and allowance of the petition, as well as the issuance of writs of mandamus or any appropriate orders to quash and set aside the orders of cancellation issued by the respondent authorities. Additionally, the petitioner seeks a directive to revoke their GST registration and any further relief deemed fit by the court.
The petitioner, a company engaged in civil construction work, had its GST registration cancelled following a show cause notice dated 29.11.2021, with the impugned order issued on 25.03.2022. An appeal was filed with the respondent No.2, which was rejected due to being filed after 75 days, exceeding the 30-day limit for condonation of delay. The petitioner argues that the delay was beyond their control and seeks relief from the court due to the absence of an alternative remedy with the GST Tribunal yet to be constituted.
The learned Assistant Government Pleader (AGP), Ms. Pooja Ashar, argues against the petitioner’s claims, stating that there were no reasonable grounds for condoning the delay. Furthermore, she contends that even if the delay were to be condoned, the statutory limit allows for a maximum of 30 days, which the petitioner exceeded, thus justifying the decision of the appellate authority.
In essence, the case revolves around procedural matters regarding the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration and the subsequent appeal process, with the petitioner alleging violations of natural justice and seeking relief from the court due to the absence of an alternative remedy.
The case before the Court involves a petitioner challenging the actions of the respondent authority on two main grounds. Firstly, the petitioner argues that the cancellation of their registration was done in violation of natural justice principles, as the order lacked clear reasoning. Secondly, they contest the decision of the appellate authority not to address the merits of the case due to a delay, which they claim could have been condoned.
The prayers sought by the petitioner include admission of the petition, allowance of the petition, issuance of a writ to quash the orders of both the respondent authorities, and direction for the revocation of the petitioner’s GST registration. Additionally, they request any other appropriate relief in the interest of justice.
The petitioner, a civil construction company registered with the Goods and Service Tax Department, had its GST registration cancelled following a show cause notice on November 29, 2021, with the impugned order dated March 25, 2022.
An appeal was made to the respondent No.2, which was rejected due to being filed after 75 days, surpassing the stipulated 30-day limit for condonation of delay. As the GST Tribunal, the statutory appellate body, has yet to be constituted, the petitioner has turned to the Court as there’s no other recourse available.
During the proceedings, the Assistant Government Pleader highlighted that there were no reasonable grounds for condoning the delay, and even if there were, the appellate authority cannot extend the condonation period beyond the statutory 30 days. Therefore, they argue that the appellate authority’s decision was justified.
Download PDF:
Siddharth Associates
For Reference Vist:
Ahmedabad High Court
Read Another Case Law:
GST Case Law