|
Case Title |
Yaghneshwar Logistics VS Additonal Commissioner |
|
Court |
Telangana High court |
|
Honorable judgwes |
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy |
|
citation |
2022 (09)GSTPanacea 505 HC Telangana WRIT PETITION NO: 36746 OF 2022 |
|
Judgement Date |
26-September-2022 |
Mr. Srinivas Chinuru, representing the petitioner, argues that the cancellation of the GST registration was unjustified and seeks its quashing. He contends that the petitioner has complied with all relevant provisions and regulations under the GST Acts. He further asserts that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to present its case before the authorities, violating principles of natural justice.
On the other hand, Mr. B. Narsimha Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent, is likely to defend the cancellation of the GST registration. He may argue that there were valid grounds for the cancellation based on non-compliance or other relevant factors.
The court will need to consider the arguments presented by both sides and determine whether the cancellation of the GST registration was lawful and whether the petitioner’s appeal was rightly dismissed. The outcome of this case could have implications for the petitioner’s business operations and compliance with GST regulations.
The summary concerns a legal case where a petitioner, represented by Mr. Srinivas Chinuru, seeks the annulment of two orders: one dated 05.10.2021 by respondent No.2, canceling the Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration of the petitioner, and another dated 18.08.2022 by respondent No.1, dismissing the petitioner’s appeal. The petitioner, a courier agency services firm registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and the Telangana State Goods and Services Tax Act, received a show cause notice on 02.09.2021 from respondent No.2 regarding the cancellation of GST registration due to the failure to file returns for six consecutive months. Despite the petitioner’s submission of an explanation on 03.10.2021, respondent No.2 canceled the GST registration on 05.10.2021, citing non-response and non-filing of returns. The petitioner then appealed to respondent No.1 under Section 107 of the GST Act, but the appeal was dismissed on 18.08.2022 due to its belated filing.
The core issue addressed in the writ petition is similar to a recent decision by the court in the case of M/s. Chenna Krishnama Charyulu Karampudi v. Additional Commissioner (Appeals-I), where it was ruled that while the appellate authority may permit the filing of an appeal beyond the three-month limitation period for an additional month, extending the limitation period further is beyond its jurisdiction. Therefore, the petitioner argues that the dismissal of their appeal by respondent No.1 on grounds of belated filing is unjust, as the authority lacks the power to extend the limitation period beyond the stipulated timeframe.
The petitioner, represented by Mr. Srinivas Chinuru, seeks relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash two orders: one dated 05.10.2021 by respondent No.2 cancelling the Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration of the petitioner, and another dated 18.08.2022 by respondent No.1 dismissing the petitioner’s appeal.
The petitioner, a proprietary firm engaged in courier agency services, was issued a show cause notice on 02.09.2021 by respondent No.2 for failure to file returns for six consecutive months. The petitioner responded on 03.10.2021, explaining the circumstances leading to the non-filing of returns. However, respondent No.2 proceeded to cancel the GST registration on 05.10.2021, citing lack of response and late filing of returns. The petitioner appealed to respondent No.1 under Section 107 of the GST Act, but the appeal was dismissed on 18.08.2022 due to the delay in filing.
The petitioner argues that the issue is similar to a recent court decision in M/s. Chenna Krishnama Charyulu Karampudi v. Additional Commissioner (Appeals-I), where it was held that while an appeal may be allowed beyond the limitation period, further extension beyond one month cannot be condoned. However, this strict stance may adversely affect the petitioner, especially since no GST Tribunal has been constituted, leaving the petitioner without recourse.
The court finds that the cancellation of GST registration is the main issue and deems it appropriate to remand the matter to respondent No.2 for reconsideration. The court does not express any opinion on the merit but instructs respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner’s grievance and pass an appropriate order according to the law. It is emphasized that the petitioner must submit all returns as required by law during the reconsideration process.
Therefore, the court sets aside the orders dated 05.10.2021 of respondent No.2 and the subsequent order of respondent No.1, and remands the matter to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration.
The case involves a petitioner, a proprietary firm engaged in courier agency services, seeking the quashing of two orders: one issued by respondent No.2 cancelling their Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration, and another issued by respondent No.1 dismissing the petitioner’s appeal against the cancellation. The petitioner had failed to file returns for six consecutive months, leading to the cancellation of their GST registration. Despite submitting a reply explaining the circumstances, the cancellation was upheld.
The petitioner approached the court, arguing that the dismissal of their appeal was unfair, especially considering the circumstances and recent court rulings. They cited a previous case, M/s. Chenna Krishnama Charyulu Karampudi v. Additional Commissioner (Appeals-1), where the court allowed for an extension of the appeal filing period beyond the initial three months, albeit with limitations. The court acknowledged that the dismissal of the appeal due to a belated filing could adversely affect the petitioner, particularly since there was no GST Tribunal constituted to address such matters.
In light of this, the court decided to remand the case back to respondent No.2, instructing them to reconsider the petitioner’s case and issue a new order in accordance with the law. The court emphasized that the petitioner must submit all outstanding returns during this process.
Consequently, the court set aside the orders from both respondents and directed respondent No.2 to reassess the petitioner’s grievance regarding the cancellation of their GST registration. The petitioner was instructed to comply with all statutory requirements during this reconsideration process.
Download PDF:
For Reference Visit:
Read Another Case Law:
GST Case Law: