Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1945 WA NO. 1859 OF 2023 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT WP(C) 29033/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
M/S. STEEL INDIA IX/205, MAMPULLY, KANDASSANKADAVU, THRISSUR , REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, BIJU CHETTUKULAM SURENDRAN., PIN - 680613 BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH PARVATHY MENON K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER TAX PAYER SERVICES CIRCLE, STATE GOODS & SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, NATTIKA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680004 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.1859 of 2023 -:2:- J U D G M E N T Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.29033 of 2023 is the appellant herein, aggrieved by the judgment dated 5.10.2023 of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition.
2.
The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal are as follows:
In the writ petition, the appellant herein had impugned Exts. P4 and P5 orders whereby its GST registration was cancelled inter alia for the reason that (i) it had failed to demonstrate that it had been conducting business in the premises declared before the authorities and (ii) it had issued invoices/bills without supply of goods or services in violation of the provisions of the Acts and Rules. It was the case of the appellant before the writ court that while it had furnished Ext.P3 reply to Ext.P2 show cause notice that proposed to cancel its registration, the respondents relied on a statement given by its landlord that suggested that it had not been conducting any business
W.A.No.1859 of 2023 -:3:- in the tenanted premises from 2012 to May, 2017, to find against it and cancel its registration.
3.
The learned Single Judge who considered the matter found that inasmuch as the appellant had not produced any material in support of his contention that the business activities were actually carried on from the address mentioned in the Registration Certificate, the mere fact that the respondents had relied on a statement of the landlord of the appellant could not be seen as vitiating the orders impugned in the writ petition. The writ petition was therefore dismissed without prejudice to the right of the appellant to prefer an appeal against the impugned orders before the 1st appellate authority.
4.
In this appeal before us, it is the submission of Sri.
Harisankar V. Menon, the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge erred in relegating the appellant to the alternative remedy under circumstances where there was a violation of natural justice occasioned by the respondents who passed the orders impugned in the writ petition. In particular, it is pointed out that while the said respondents relied upon the submission of the landlord of the premises, no opportunity was extended to the appellant to cross examine the landlord in order to test the veracity of
W.A.No.1859 of 2023 -:4:- the statement.
5.
Per contra, it is the submission of the learned Government Pleader Sri. Shamsudheen that the appellant had not produced any evidence by way of tax invoice or otherwise to suggest that it had been carrying on the business from the tenanted premises during the relevant period and it is under these circumstances that the respondents relied on the statement of the landlord, which also suggested that the appellant had not been carrying on business from the tenanted premises, to cancel the registration granted to the appellant.
On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. The appellant has an effective alternative remedy against the orders impugned in the writ petition before the appellate authority under the GST Act. We however, deem it appropriate to clarify that, if the appellant prefers an appeal against the orders impugned in the writ petition within two weeks from today, then, the appellate authority shall consider the appeal on its merit, inter alia by independently examining the evidence produced by the appellant to demonstrate that it was actually doing business from the
W.A.No.1859 of 2023 -:5:- tenanted premises mentioned above. In that connection, the appellate authority shall not be guided solely by the statements obtained from the landlord who, we are given to understand, is in inimical terms with the appellant. In other words, if there is independent evidence produced by the appellant to demonstrate that it was conducting business from the premises aforementioned, then that shall be taken due note of by the appellate authority while adjudicating the appeal.
Save for this limited modification, the writ appeal is otherwise dismissed.
Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp