Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 9213 OF 2024 PETITIONER :- RESHMA GEORGE ALEXANDER, AGED 31 YEARS D/O. PROF. GEONGE ALEXANDER (RETIRED), DIRECTOR, INNO AUSBILDUNG PRIVATE LIMITED, CHERUTHARA, PUTHIYANKAM, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678545 BY ADVS.
GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL T.S.RAJASENAN R.B.BALACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS :- 1 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF TAX PAYERS, SERVICE CIRCLE GST, ALATHUR RANGE, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678541 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CPIO, CR BUILDING, METTUPALAYAM STREET,P.B NO. 33, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678001 3 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER AND FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, GST BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001 SRI. SREELAL N. WARRIER-SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 9213 OF 2024 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 25 th day of March, 2024 The present writ petition is filed impugning Ext.P8 order dated 18.01.2024 whereby the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay in filing revocation application of cancellation of GST registration has been rejected by the Joint Commissioner, Palakkad on the ground that the reasons placed on record for condoning the delay in filing the revocation application of cancellation of registration is not satisfied. No reply was received within 30 days by the proper officer.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2023 provides that the application for revocation of cancellation of registration shall not be rejected unless the applicant has been given an opportunity of being heard.
Admittedly no such opportunity was given to the petitioner for personal hearing before the impugned order Ext.P8 has been passed. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the order suffers from non-compliance of the mandatory
WP(C) NO. 9213 OF 2024 3 provisions providing personal hearing to the petitioner before deciding the application and therefore, the impugned order passed in the violation of the statutory prescription under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2023.
3.
Sri.Sreelal N Warrrier, the learned Standing Counsel has not disputed with the factual aspect that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner before the impugned order came to be passed.
4.
Section 30 of the CGST Act reads as under :- 30. Revocation of cancellation of registration (1) Subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, any registered person, whose registration is cancelled by the proper officer on his own motion, may apply to such officer for revocation of cancellation of the registration in [such manner, within such time and subject to such conditions and restrictions, as may be prescribed.]
[xxxx] (2) The proper officer may, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed, by order, either revoke cancellation of the registration or reject the application;
PROVIDED that the application for revocation of cancellation of registration shall not be rejected unless the applicant has been given an opportunity of being heard.
(3) The revocation of cancellation of registration under the State Goods and Service Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be revocation of cancellation of registration under this Act.
WP(C) NO. 9213 OF 2024 4
5.
Under the provision of Section 30, it is mandatory for the purpose this case to provide an opportunity of hearing to the applicant before deciding the application. No such opportunity was provided to the petitioner and therefore, I am of the considered view that the order suffers from apparent illegality by not following the mandatory provision of Section 30 of giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the applicant by the proper officer.
6.
In view therefore, the present writ petition along with impugned order is set aside. The 3rd respondent is directed to issue notice of personal hearing to the petitioner and the petitioner shall appear before the 3rd respondent and make his submission and thereafter fresh orders are being passed as expeditiously, in accordance with law.
This writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE SMA
WP(C) NO. 9213 OF 2024 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9213/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS :- Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION DATED 14.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARIZED RESIGNATION LETTER DATED 24.05.2022 OF ANUDARSAN.K.S.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATUS OF THE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DETAILS OF THE COMPANY UPDATED ON 30.01.2024 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPANY INFORMATION LETTER DATED 23.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 02.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE STATUS REPORT OF GST RETURNS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2023-2024.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE CONTRACT DATED 09.01.2024 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER'S COMPANY AND THIRUVALLA MUNICIPALITY.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05.02.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.