Petitioner | Vinod Kumar |
Respondent | Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST & Ors. |
Decision by | Uttarakhand High Court |
Date of Order | 30- September- 2021
|
Citation no. | Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1553 of 2021 2021 (9) GSTPanacea 4 HC Uttarakhand |
Hon’ble Judge | Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma |
Decision | In Favour of Revenue |
Cancellation of the Registration-The petitioner himself has derelicted in availing the opportunity of hearing. It can’t be said, that the order suffers from the violation of principles of natural justice.
Cancellation of the Registration-Facts of the Case
Cancellation of the Registration-Assessee challenged the order passed by Asstt. Commissioner cancelling his registration on the ground that the assessee had failed to file his continuous returns for a period of over six months which was otherwise mandatory under the Act, hence his registration was cancelled. Assessee contended that the aforesaid cancellation of registration of assessee was without providing any opportunity of hearing to assessee.
Cancellation of the Registration-Argument Before Court
The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in the present writ petition is emanating from the impugned orders, which have been passed by the Competent Authorities under the Uttarakhand Goods and Service Tax, Act of 2017, whereby by an order of 21-9-2019, which has been passed by the Assistant Commissioner, GST, he had cancelled the registration of the petitioner.
The reason, which has been assigned in the order of cancellation of the registration, was that since the petitioner was an assessed tax payer, and as he has failed to file his continuous returns for a period of over six months which was otherwise mandatory under the Act, and hence his registration was cancelled.
The petitioner has contended, that the order was without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and hence it would be bad in the eyes of law.
The petitioner submits that on account of the financial loss it had suffered a financial crisis, in the year 2019- 2020, and hence he was not able to pay the tax returns for the period, which had constituted, as to be the basis and the reasoning for cancellation of his registration by the Impugned Order, dated 21-9-2019. He further submits, that though the Assistant Commissioner on 9-9-2019, had issued the show-cause notice prior to taking an action of cancellation of registration of the petitioner.
Uttarakhand High Court Held
Cancellation of the Registration-The full bench of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has carved out an exception for an inference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and its only when the competent authority cancelling the registration, has over-step the exercise of its powers. It is not so in the present case because if the order of 21-9-2019, is scrutinized, it apparently speaks about, and which is also an admitted case of the petitioner too, that the returns for the period of six months was not filed, and hence it cannot be said that the authority, while passing the order of cancelling the registration, had over-stepped in the exercise of its power, which has been otherwise vested with it under the law. Because the factum of default was apparent and admitted, which attracted, the provisions contained under section 29 (2) (c).
Another exception which has been carved out by the full bench of the Gujarat High Court, is when the authority has barged over its jurisdiction and has then cancelled the registration.
It is not a case here, where the authority cancelling the order has misinterpreted or misapplied the provisions of section 29 (2) (c) of the Act.
In case if the allegations of non communication of the said show cause notice which the petitioner contends to have been admittedly imparted to the Counsel, would mean, that it was an internal flaw in his own arrangement, which was made by the petitioner himself for pursuing the proceedings.
The impugned orders, which are under challenge, cannot be said to be brought within the ambit of any of the exceptions culled out by the Full Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, in order to enable the writ courts to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to scrutinize the principal order of cancellation of registration, dated 21-9-2019.
Hence, since the appeal itself has been dismissed on the ground of limitation, the writ remedy would not be available to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition lacks merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Download PDF
Vinod-Kumar
For Reference Visit:
Uttarakhand High Court