M/S. Sri Ram Enterprises vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer

Held

The Court, having considered the facts and circumstances, inclined to allow liberty to the petitioner. The petitioner is permitted to approach the competent authority within one week from the date of the order to submit an application for revocation of GST registration. If the online submission is not accepted due to technical reasons, the petitioner may submit the application in physical form. The competent authority is directed to entertain the application and take a decision in accordance with law within three weeks thereafter. The Court did not delve into the merits of the cancellation order itself, nor did it make a finding on the allegations of fraud or misstatement. The primary focus was on providing a procedural remedy for the petitioner to seek revocation.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sri Ram Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The cancellation order, dated December 22, 2023, was issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer (erstwhile Saroor Nagar-III Circle, now Respondent No. 1) and stated that the registration was obtained by fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. This followed a show cause notice dated March 23, 2023, which alleged that the principal place of business was not found to be ascertainable during a field visit. The petitioner argued that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, business operations were severely impacted, preventing regular operations at the business premises. The petitioner also stated that the GST portal did not permit filing a revocation application due to time bar, and thus sought a direction for the respondent to entertain their application manually. The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history involves the issuance of a show cause notice, an order of cancellation, and the subsequent filing of this writ petition as an appeal was time-barred.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration, based on the grounds of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts, and the alleged unavailability of the principal place of business during a field visit, is illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly when the petitioner attributes business disruptions to the COVID-19 pandemic and faces technical difficulties in filing a revocation application online due to time bar? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner contends that the business operations were significantly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to the premises not being continuously operational. They further argue that the GST portal's technical limitations prevented them from filing a revocation application within the prescribed time. Therefore, they seek a direction for manual acceptance and consideration of their revocation application. Respondents' Contentions: The learned Assistant Government Pleader for State Tax submits that the cancellation was based on the grounds that the registration was obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts.