M/S. Sri Anjaneya Electrical And Civil Works VS The Union Of India

The case involves Mr. Ganesh Bhu.ianga Rao Vadduri, represented by his counsel, Mr. Ganesh Bhu.ianga Rao Vadduri, and opposing counsel including Ms. Sapna Reddy representing Mr. B. Narsimha Sarma and Mr. B. Mukherjee representing respondent No. 1.

Mr. Vadduri, the petitioner, has filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash an order dated 08.04.2020 passed by respondent No. 5, as well as an order-in-appeal dated 21.10.2022 passed by respondent No. 4.

The petitioner is the proprietor of a business engaged in electrical and civil works, specifically the installation of electrical poles and transformers.

The case revolves around a petition filed by Mr. Ganesh Bhu.ianga Rao Vadduri, represented by learned counsel Mr. Ganesh Bhu.ianga Rao Vadduri, seeking the quashing of two orders: one dated 08.04.2020 passed by respondent No.5, and another dated 21.10.2022 passed by respondent No.4.

Mr. Vadduri, the petitioner, operates a proprietorship engaged in electrical and civil works such as installation of electrical poles and transformers. Following the enactment of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, the petitioner registered with the GST authority, obtaining a registration certificate dated 03.04.2018 bearing registration No. 36EOBPM8642KLZH.

The dispute arose when respondent No.5 issued a show cause notice dated 14.02.2020 to the petitioner, demanding an explanation as to why the GST registration should not be cancelled due to the petitioner’s failure to file GST returns for the last six months. The petitioner responded to this notice on 25.02.2020, however, respondent No.5 rejected the explanation provided and proceeded to cancel the petitioner’s GST registration via an order dated 08.04.2020.

Subsequently, the petitioner appealed this decision before respondent No.4. However, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of limitation in an order-in-appeal dated 21.10.2022.

In essence, the petitioner is contesting the cancellation of their GST registration, arguing that the decision was unjustified and that the appeal dismissal was incorrect due to procedural limitations. Mr. B.Narsimha Sarma represents the respondents, while Mr. B.Mukherjee represents respondent No.1.

The case involves a petitioner, represented by Mr. Ganesh Bhu.ianga Rao Vadduri, seeking the quashing of two orders: one dated 08.04.2020 passed by respondent No.5 and another dated 21.10.2022 passed by respondent No.4. The petitioner, a proprietorship concern engaged in electrical and civil works, was registered under the GST regime. However, a show cause notice was issued by respondent No.5 on 14.02.2020, questioning why the petitioner’s GST registration should not be cancelled due to non-filing of GST returns for the last six months. The petitioner replied on 25.02.2020, but respondent No.5 rejected the explanation and cancelled the GST registration on 08.04.2020. The petitioner appealed this decision to respondent No.4, which dismissed the appeal on 21.10.2022 citing limitation.

In the court proceedings, Mr. B.Narsimha Sarma represented respondents No.2 to 5, and Mr. B.Mukherjee represented respondent No.1. After hearing arguments from both sides, the court decided to set aside the orders of respondent No.5 dated 08.04.2020 and respondent No.4 dated 21.10.2022. The court ordered the matter to be remanded back to respondent No.5 for a fresh consideration and decision regarding the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration, emphasizing that due opportunity for a hearing should be provided in accordance with the law. 

The case involves a petitioner represented by Mr. Ganesh Bhu.ianga Rao Vadduri seeking the quashing of two orders: one dated 08.04.2020 passed by respondent No.5 and the other dated 21.10.2022 passed by respondent No.4. The petitioner, a proprietorship engaged in electrical and civil works, was registered under the GST regime with registration No. 36EOBPM8642KLZH dated 03.04.2018.

The issue arose when respondent No.5 issued a show cause notice on 14.02.2020 to the petitioner, questioning why their GST registration should not be canceled due to failure to file GST returns for the last six months. The petitioner responded on 25.02.2020, but respondent No.5, after considering the explanation, proceeded to cancel the GST registration on 08.04.2020. The petitioner then appealed this decision to respondent No.4, who dismissed the appeal on grounds of limitation on 21.10.2022.

In the court proceedings, Mr. B.Narsimha Sarma represented respondent No.1, and Mr. B.Mukherjee represented respondent No.1. The court, after hearing arguments from both sides and considering relevant case laws, decided to set aside the orders of respondent No.5 dated 08.04.2020 and respondent No.4 dated 21.10.2022. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to respondent No.5 for fresh consideration regarding the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration, emphasizing the importance of providing the petitioner with a fair opportunity to be heard.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: