Shreya life sciences private limited VS Superintendent AE-1 CGST commissionerate

In the legal proceedings presided over by Mr. S.K. Posti, a seasoned Senior Advocate, along with Mr. Ashutosh Posti, counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, counsel for the respondents, a significant issue arose concerning the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST Registration. The cancellation was executed by respondent No. 2, the Superintendent of CGST, through an order dated 13th March 2020. The primary justification provided for this cancellation was the petitioner’s failure to file GST returns for a period exceeding six months.

The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by this decision, brought the matter to the attention of the legal authorities. Central to their argument was the contention that the cancellation of their GST Registration was unjust, primarily due to the grounds cited by the Superintendent. They asserted that there might have been mitigating circumstances leading to the lapse in filing returns, which warranted a reconsideration of the cancellation decision.

Under the guidance of Mr. S.K. Posti and the petitioner’s legal team, a comprehensive review of the circumstances surrounding the cancellation ensued. The legal discourse likely delved into various aspects, including any procedural irregularities in the cancellation process, potential extenuating circumstances leading to the non-compliance with GST return filing, and the broader implications of the cancellation on the petitioner’s business or livelihood.

Moreover, it’s probable that arguments were presented highlighting any legal precedents or provisions within GST regulations that could support the petitioner’s case. These might have included provisions for appeal, provisions for reinstatement of GST registration under certain conditions, or any legal defenses against arbitrary or unjust cancellation.

Throughout the proceedings, Mr. S.K. Posti and the legal team likely advocated vehemently for the petitioner’s rights and sought to demonstrate any deficiencies or lapses in the actions of the Superintendent leading to the cancellation. Conversely, Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, representing the respondents, presumably defended the cancellation decision, possibly citing statutory provisions and justifications for such actions under GST laws.

Overall, the legal proceedings would have involved a thorough examination of the facts, legal arguments, and precedents relevant to the case. The goal would have been to secure a favorable outcome for the petitioner, either through the reversal of the cancellation decision or through other legal remedies available within the framework of GST regulations.

In a legal case, Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, representing the respondents, argued that the petitioner had not submitted GST returns for sixteen consecutive months and had also failed to pay the required tax amount. Consequently, the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration under Section 29(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was justified. Additionally, Mr. Bhatia pointed out that the petitioner acknowledged a tax liability of `1,48,01,516/- in paragraph 15 of the writ petition.

However, Mr. S.K. Posti, the learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner, contested Bhatia’s assertion. Posti argued that the petitioner had actually cleared their entire tax liability up to February 2020 and the remaining liability was solely due to outstanding interest on delayed tax payments. Posti invoked Section 80 of the CGST Act, which allows for the payment of tax and other amounts in installments. He further stated that the petitioner was fully prepared to pay off the entire interest and tax amount in installments.

In essence, the crux of the dispute lies in the interpretation of the petitioner’s tax liability and whether the cancellation of their GST registration was warranted under the law. The petitioner’s counsel contends that their client is willing to fulfill their obligations by paying the outstanding amount in installments, while the respondents argue that the cancellation was justified due to prolonged non-compliance with GST regulations.

Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, representing the respondents, proposed a course of action to resolve the matter at hand. He suggested that the petitioner could submit a fresh application to the Commissioner of CGST under Section 80 of the CGST Act, accompanied by a specified upfront amount. He assured that upon receiving such an application, the Commissioner of CGST would review it and make an appropriate decision.

As a result, the writ petition was resolved, granting the petitioner the liberty to submit a new representation to the Commissioner of CGST within four weeks from the date of the decision. The petitioner was instructed to include an upfront amount of Rs. 30.00 lakh along with this representation. It was clarified that if the petitioner complied with these instructions and submitted the representation along with the specified amount, the Commissioner of CGST would be obliged to consider the petitioner’s request for revocation of the cancellation order. This consideration would be done in accordance with the relevant legal provisions, with a stipulated timeframe of ten days from the receipt of the said representation.

The summary could go something like this:

The court has decided to temporarily suspend the cancellation order dated March 13, 2020, until a decision is made on the petitioner’s representation. This means that the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration will not be enforced for the time being. However, the petitioner’s GST registration will only be restored once the nationwide lockdown is lifted. Additionally, the court has ordered that a certified copy of this decision be provided to all involved parties today upon payment of the standard charges. 

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit
Uttarakhand High Court 

Read Another Case Law:
GST Case Law