Case Title | Sunil Kumar Vij etitioner. Vs Union of India and others |
Court | Himachal pradesh High Court |
Honorable judges | Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan Justice Virender Singh |
Citation | 2022 (12) GSTPanacea 568 HC Himachal Pradesh CWP No.8478 of 2022 |
Judgement Date | 13- December-2022 |
The petitioner seeks to challenge an order issued on August 29, 2022, by respondent No. 2 through the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari. The order in question pertains to the rejection of appeal No. 34/ADC/A/GST/CHD/2022-23 by respondent No. 2. The rejection was based on a singular ground, which forms the crux of the petitioner’s grievance.
In essence, the petitioner contends that the decision made by respondent No. 2 to dismiss the appeal was erroneous and thus warrants judicial review. The specific ground cited for the rejection of the appeal is not explicitly stated, however, it is implied that the petitioner perceives it as unjust or lacking in legal merit.
By seeking a writ of certiorari, the petitioner aims to have the impugned order quashed, thereby nullifying its legal effect. Certiorari is a prerogative writ issued by a superior court to quash decisions of inferior courts or tribunals on the grounds of jurisdictional error, procedural irregularity, or illegality.
The petitioner presumably argues that the decision made by respondent No. 2 is tainted by one or more of these deficiencies, thus rendering it liable to be set aside. This could include errors in law, failure to consider relevant evidence, procedural unfairness, or any other legal infirmity that may have vitiated the decision-making process.
The filing of a writ petition in the nature of certiorari signifies the petitioner’s assertion of their right to seek redressal against what they perceive as an unjust or unlawful administrative action. By invoking the jurisdiction of the court, the petitioner seeks a remedy that would invalidate the impugned order and potentially provide relief in the form of reconsideration of the appeal or any other appropriate remedy as deemed fit by the court.
In summary, the petitioner seeks recourse through the legal process to challenge the rejection of their appeal by respondent No. 2 by filing a writ petition in the nature of certiorari, with the ultimate objective of having the impugned order quashed on grounds of perceived legal infirmities or procedural irregularities.
he petitioner seeks judicial intervention through two separate requests outlined in a legal document. Firstly, they request the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to invalidate an order issued by respondent No.2 on 29.08.2022. This order rejected the petitioner’s appeal (No. 34/ADC/A/GST/CHD/2022-23) due to a one-day delay, without addressing the appeal’s merits. The petitioner argues that this decision violates principles of natural justice.
Secondly, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus or certiorari to compel the respondents to suspend the operation of an order issued on 28.07.2020 (Annexure P) by respondent No.3. This order cancelled the petitioner’s CGST registration, citing failure to submit up-to-date returns and tax payments. The petitioner contends that respondent No.3’s refusal to revoke the registration cancellation, upheld by respondent No.2, was unjust due to the hyper-technical and pedantic nature of the decision-making process.
The petitioner, a registered GST dealer, received a show-cause notice on 14.07.2020 for registration cancellation. Respondent No.4 subsequently cancelled the GST registration on 28.07.2020, alleging non-submission of updated returns and tax payments. Despite the petitioner’s efforts, respondent No.3 rejected their application for revocation of the cancellation on 25.10.2021. An appeal against this decision was dismissed by respondent No.2 based solely on a one-day delay.
The petitioner questions the rationale behind respondent No.2’s decision, expressing surprise at the excessively technical and narrow interpretation of the case. They argue that such a rigid approach undermines the principles of justice and fairness, urging the court to intervene for the sake of equity and lawfulness.
The petitioner in this case seeks relief through a writ petition concerning actions taken by respondent authorities regarding their GST registration. Here’s a detailed summary of the situation:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under GST, received a show cause notice dated 14.07.2020 for the cancellation of their GST registration. Subsequently, Respondent No.4 canceled the GST registration suo motu via an order dated 28.07.2020, citing the petitioner’s failure to submit up-to-date returns along with tax payments as grounds for cancellation. Despite the petitioner’s efforts, Respondent No.3 rejected their application for revocation of GST registration via an order dated 25.10.2021. Furthermore, an appeal filed against this decision was dismissed by Respondent No.2 due to being filed one day past the deadline.
The petitioner contends that Respondent No.2’s decision to dismiss the appeal based on a one-day delay is a violation of natural justice principles, as it did not consider the appeal’s merit. They argue that such a hyper-technical stance is unwarranted, especially considering the gravity of the matter. The petitioner emphasizes that Respondent No.2 lacked the authority to condone the delay, referencing precedents set by various High Courts to support their claim.
They cite specific cases such as M/s G.G. Agencies Girijeshwar Rice Mill vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors., Vinod Kumar Vs. Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST & Ors., TVL. Suguna Cutpiece Centre vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST), M/s Trans India Carco Carriers Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (Circle), and Poonamchand Saran vs. Union of India and others, where similar issues were addressed by the courts.
The petitioner argues that the cancellation of their GST registration severely impacts their ability to conduct business and requests the court’s intervention to quash the orders issued by respondent authorities. They seek relief in the form of writs in the nature of certiorari and mandamus, aiming to annul the dismissal of the appeal and revoke the cancellation of GST registration, respectively.
Overall, the petitioner asserts that the actions of the respondent authorities have not only disregarded principles of natural justice but have also failed to consider the practical implications of their decisions on the petitioner’s livelihood and business operations. They urge the court to intervene in the interest of justice.
The petitioner in this case sought relief through a writ petition concerning the cancellation of their GST registration. The primary issue revolved around the rejection of their appeal by respondent No. 2, citing a one-day delay in filing. The petitioner argued that this decision violated principles of natural justice and urged for the quashing of the order.
Furthermore, the petitioner requested the court to direct respondents to stay the operation of the cancellation order during the pendency of the writ petition and to revoke the cancellation of CGST Registration in the interest of justice.
The petitioner, a registered dealer under GST, received a show cause notice for registration cancellation. Respondent No. 4 canceled the registration, stating the petitioner failed to submit up-to-date returns along with tax payments. Subsequent attempts for revocation were rejected, leading to an appeal dismissal due to a one-day delay.
The petitioner questioned respondent No. 2’s decision, arguing it was excessively technical and deprived them of their right to a fair hearing. They highlighted precedents where courts had taken a more lenient view on similar matters.
It was emphasized that the cancellation of GST registration would adversely affect the petitioner’s livelihood, constituting a violation of their constitutional right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
In the final judgment, the court set aside the order dated 29.08.2022, condoned the delay in filing the appeal, and directed respondent No. 2 to decide the appeal on its merits. Each party was instructed to bear their own costs. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations, and any pending applications were also resolved.
Download PDF:
For Reference Visit:
Read Another Case Law:
GST Case Law: