Sri Ganesh Constructions vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tuticorn-I

The petitioner in this case has filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of their GSTN Registration No. 33ACAFS3704M2Z6 by the respondent through an order dated 03.02.2023.

The petitioner, represented by their counsel, argues that they are involved in executing contract works for the Government and its agencies, and have duly registered under the SGST Act 2017 with the GSTIN mentioned earlier. They further claim to have employed a part-time accountant for the purpose of filing returns periodically. However, despite this arrangement, the petitioner received a show cause notice dated 25.01.2023, summoning them for an inquiry. It is contended that the impugned order was issued by the respondent canceling their GST registration without providing an opportunity for the petitioner to present their case.

The petitioner’s counsel emphasizes that the petitioner had been consistently filing their returns through their accountant. However, it came to their attention later that due to the accountant’s ill health, the returns were not filed on time. It is argued that this delay was unintentional and due to circumstances beyond the petitioner’s control. Furthermore, the petitioner asserts that they were not granted a fair hearing before the cancellation of their registration.

The counsel highlights that although an appeal remedy exists under the GST Act, the petitioner was not given an opportunity to exercise this right before the cancellation decision was made. Therefore, the petitioner seeks relief from the court against the cancellation of their GST registration, citing procedural improprieties and requesting a fair reconsideration of their case.

Section 107 of the GST Act plays a crucial role in determining the statutory limitation period within which appeals can be filed. In a recent case, a petitioner approached the court after the GST portal rejected their appeal, citing non-compliance with the statutory limitation period prescribed under Section 107 of the GST Act. The petitioner argued that the cancellation of their GST registration adversely impacted their business operations since the GSTN number is mandatory for conducting business activities. Consequently, the petitioner urged the court to quash the impugned order.

On the other hand, the respondent, represented by learned counsel, contended that the petitioner had been afforded ample opportunities to address the concerns leading to the cancellation of their registration under the GSTN Act. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner well in advance, on January 25, 2023, providing sufficient time for the petitioner to present their explanation. However, the petitioner failed to respond to the show cause notice, leading to the issuance of the impugned order under the provisions of the GST Act. Additionally, it was highlighted that the petitioner neglected to file the appeal within the prescribed limitation period outlined in Section 107(4) of the GST Act.

Upon thorough consideration of the arguments presented by both parties and examination of the evidence submitted, the Court deliberated on the matter.

Download Pdf:
Sri Ganesh Constructions

For Reference Visit:
Madras High Court

Raed Another Case Law:
GST Case Law