Facebook Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube
gst-panacea-logo
Facebook Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube

Uma Shree Tour And Travels Through Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Case Title

Uma Shree Tour And Travels Through Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Court

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Honorable Judges

Justice SHEEL NAGU

Justice SUNITA YADAV

Citation

2022 (02) GSTPanacea 623 HC Madhya Pradesh

WRIT PETITION No. 2333 of 2022

Judgement Date

02- February -2023

The argument that the petitioner was not served with the impugned order cannot be addressed in a writ petition because it involves contested factual issues. This is particularly pertinent given that the petitioner did not utilize the available remedy under Section 30. Section 30 allows a person aggrieved by an order of registration cancellation to seek revocation of the order within 30 days. Additionally, Section 30 grants the competent authority the power to condone delays if the petitioner can demonstrate sufficient cause. Therefore, the appropriate course of action would have been to pursue the remedy provided under Section 30 before approaching the writ petition.

The petitioner’s claim that the impugned order was not served cannot be addressed in a writ petition because it involves disputed facts, particularly when the petitioner has not used the remedy available under Section 30. Section 30 allows an aggrieved person to apply for revocation of a cancellation of registration within 30 days and permits the competent authority to condone delays if sufficient cause is shown.

Given this context, the Court deems it appropriate for the petitioner to first utilize the statutory remedy under Section 30. Consequently, the Court decides to dispose of the petition with the following directions:

1.The petitioner should seek recourse through the statutory remedy provided under Section 30.

2.The petition is disposed of in light of this direction.

In a legal dispute, the petitioner challenged an order, claiming it was not properly served. However, this claim involves disputed facts that are not suitable for resolution through a writ petition, especially given that the petitioner did not use the available remedy under Section 30 of the Act. Section 30 provides a process for revoking a cancellation of registration, allowing an aggrieved person to apply for revocation within 30 days and permitting the competent authority to condone delays if sufficient cause is shown.

Given this context, the court decided it was appropriate for the petitioner to first pursue the statutory remedy under Section 30. The court directed the petitioner to submit an appropriate application for revocation under Section 30(1) of the Act, 2017, within 15 working days from the date of the court’s order. The petitioner must include a copy of the court’s order and an application for condonation of delay, explaining the reasons for the late submission.

The petitioner contended that the impugned order was not served on them. However, this issue cannot be resolved in a writ petition because it involves disputed questions of fact. Moreover, the petitioner did not use the remedy available under Section 30, which allows an aggrieved person to apply for revocation of a registration cancellation within 30 days and grants the competent authority the power to condone delays if sufficient cause is shown.

Given this context, the Court finds it appropriate for the petitioner to first use the statutory remedy under Section 30. Therefore, the Court disposes of the petition with specific directions:

1.The petitioner must file an appropriate application for revocation under Section 30 (1) of the Act, 2017 within 15 working days from the date of this order.

2.The application should include a copy of this order and an application for condonation of delay, explaining the reasons for the delay.

3.The competent authority is instructed to decide on the application for condonation of delay based on its merits.

4.If the delay is deemed condonable, the authority will then consider the application for revocation on its merits.

In a legal context, the court was presented with a writ petition where the petitioner argued that they had not been served with an impugned order. The court determined that this issue involves disputed facts, which cannot be resolved in a writ petition. Instead, the petitioner should have utilized the remedy provided under Section 30 of the Act, which allows an aggrieved person to apply for revocation of an order of cancellation within 30 days and permits the competent authority to condone any delay if sufficient cause is shown.

The court, after considering the circumstances, decided that it would be more appropriate for the petitioner to first avail the statutory remedy under Section 30. Consequently, the court issued the following directions:

1.The petitioner must file an application for revocation under Section 30(1) of the Act within 15 working days from the date of the court’s order. This application should include a copy of the court’s order and an application for condonation of delay, explaining the reason for the delay.

2.The competent authority is instructed to first address the application for condonation of delay based on its merits. If the delay is deemed condonable, the authority should then consider the application for revocation on its merits.

The court emphasized that if the appeal under Section 30 is decided on its merits, this decision should be made within 45 days from the date the revocation application is submitted.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law:

Company Policy

GET STARTED​

IMPORTANT LINKS

Weekly Newsletter