Case Title | Sms Infrastructure Vs Union Bank Of India |
Court | Bombay High Court |
Honorable Judges | Justice A.S.DOCTOR Justice K.R.SHRIRAM |
Citation | 2022 (07) GSTPanacea 641 HC Bombay WRIT PETITION NO.8747 OF 2022 |
Judgement Date | 25-july-2022 |
The petitioner is challenging an order dated February 24, 2022, issued by Respondent No. 2, which dismissed the petitioner’s appeal against a previous order dated April 16, 2020. The April 2020 order had canceled the petitioner’s registration. The initial order was issued by Respondent No. 3.
Respondent No. 2, in the impugned order, acknowledged in paragraph 7.2 that the petitioner’s appeal was maintainable. Despite this acknowledgment, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the petitioner could have filed an application under Section 30 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). Section 30 provides a mechanism for taxpayers to apply for the revocation of the cancellation of their registration.
In summary, the petitioner is contesting the dismissal of their appeal, arguing that the acknowledgment of the appeal’s maintainability should have led to a different outcome, rather than directing the petitioner to seek relief through Section 30 of the CGST Act.
In this case, the petitioner is challenging an order dated February 24, 2022, issued by respondent No.2, which dismissed the petitioner’s appeal against an earlier order dated April 16, 2020, that canceled the petitioner’s registration. The original cancellation order was issued by respondent No.3.
Respondent No.2 acknowledged in paragraph 7.2 of the impugned order that the appeal was maintainable. However, despite this acknowledgment, respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal. The dismissal was based on the rationale that the petitioner could have submitted an application under Section 30 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).
Section 30 of the CGST Act pertains to the revocation of the cancellation of registration. It stipulates that if a registration is canceled, the affected party (in this case, the petitioner) may apply for revocation of the cancellation within 30 days from the date they were served with the cancellation order. Respondent No.2 essentially suggested that instead of appealing, the petitioner should have pursued the route provided under Section 30 to seek revocation of the registration cancellation.
The petitioner is challenging an order dated February 24, 2022, issued by Respondent No. 2, which dismissed the petitioner’s appeal against an earlier order dated April 16, 2020. This earlier order, issued by Respondent No. 3, had cancelled the petitioner’s registration.
In the impugned order, Respondent No. 2 acknowledges in paragraph 7.2 that the petitioner’s appeal is maintainable. However, Respondent No. 2 still dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the petitioner should have filed an application under Section 30 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). Section 30 allows for the revocation of cancellation of registration, stipulating that the petitioner may apply to the appropriate officer for revocation within 30 days from the service date of the cancellation order.
The petitioner argues that Respondent No. 2 erred in dismissing the appeal on this basis. They contend that Section 107 of the CGST Act, which governs the filing of appeals, does not require a registered person to file an application under Section 30 while challenging an order of cancellation. Despite acknowledging the appeal’s maintainability, Respondent No. 2 dismissed it solely because an application under Section 30 was not submitted. The petitioner disagrees with this reasoning, asserting that the requirement to file under Section 30 is not a condition for maintaining an appeal under Section 107.
The petitioner is challenging an order dated February 24, 2022, issued by respondent No. 2, which dismissed the petitioner’s appeal against a previous order dated April 16, 2020, that cancelled the petitioner’s registration. The initial cancellation order was issued by respondent No. 3.
In the impugned order, respondent No. 2 acknowledged in paragraph 7.2 that the appeal was maintainable. However, the appeal was still dismissed on the grounds that the petitioner could have filed an application under section 30 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). Section 30 allows for the revocation of the cancellation of registration, stating that an application for revocation must be submitted within 30 days from the service date of the cancellation order.
The court finds respondent No. 2’s reasoning incorrect. Section 107 of the CGST Act, which deals with appeals, does not mandate that a registered person must file an application under section 30 while challenging a cancellation order. Despite acknowledging the appeal’s maintainability, respondent No. 2 dismissed it due to the absence of an application under section 30, a stance the court disagrees with.
Consequently, the order dated February 24, 2022, is quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 2 is instructed to reconsider the appeal anew and make a decision on its merits in accordance with the law.
Download PDF:
For Reference Visit:
Read Another Case Law:
GST Case Law: