Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1945 WA NO. 1383 OF 2023 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.06.2023 IN WP(C) 15574/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
PENUEL NEXUS PVT. LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. M.O. JOSEPH,AGED 49 YEARS, PENUEL NEXUS PVT.
LTD.,XXIII/408,KANNAPARAMPANARCADE,MARKET P O, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 686673 BY ADVS.
SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM SRI.THOMAS C.ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER HEADQUARTERS (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM AT MATTANCHERRY, FIRST FLOOR, BAZAAR ROAD, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI, PIN – 682002 2 STATE TAX OFFICER, TAXPAYER SERVICES CIRCLE, COCHIN STATE GST DEPARTMENT, MUVATTUPUZHA STATE DEPARTMENT, MINI CIVIL STATION, 2ND FLOOR, MUDAVOOR PO, MUVATTUPUZHA, KERALA, PIN – 686669 BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.M JASMINE THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
:2:
W.A.No.1383 of 2023 JUDGMENT A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
This Writ Appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 13.06.2023 of a learned Single Judge in WP(C).No.15574 of 2023.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the Writ Appeal are as follows:
The appellant firm is stated to be engaged in direct marketing, and it had a GST registration. During the Covid-19 pandemic period, the appellant's business got affected and it was apparently prevented from filing returns on time. The respondents, therefore, cancelled the GST registration granted to the appellant by Ext.P2 order. Although the appellant preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent, the said appeal was rejected on the ground of delay. The appellant, therefore, sought to approach this Court through the Writ Petition aforementioned impugning Ext.P2 order that cancelled the registration certificate of the appellant.
3. The learned Single Judge, while considering the Writ Petition, took note of the scheme of statutory finality accorded to orders in the
:3:
W.A.No.1383 of 2023 nature of Ext.P2, under circumstances where the appellant had not preferred a statutory appeal against Ext.P2 order within the time, including the condonable period of delay, permitted under the statute.
The learned Judge, therefore, dismissed the Writ Petition relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises v.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and Others [(2008) 3 SCC 70] and CCE & Customs v. Hongo India (P) Ltd. [(2009) 5 SCC 791].
4. Before us, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the initial order of cancellation of registration was vitiated on account of non-compliance with the rules of natural justice in that, no notice was served on the appellant prior to the cancellation of the registration. On a consideration of the said submission, we find that the alleged illegal cancellation of registration was very much a matter that could have been urged by the appellant in a duly constituted appeal preferred by him in terms of the GST Act and Rules.
It is not in dispute that the appellant had approached the appellate authority beyond the period of limitation contemplated under the statute and well beyond even the condonable period of limitation.
Under such circumstances, it is trite that the appellant could not have ignored the statutory scheme of finality envisaged under the GST Act in respect of orders in the nature of Ext.P2 and preferred a Writ Petition
:4:
W.A.No.1383 of 2023 challenging the same. This settled position in law has been reiterated in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and Others v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited [(2020) 77 GSTR 342 (SC) as also in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v.
Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited and Others [(2017) 5 Supreme Court Cases 42]. In the former decision, it was clearly held that even though the High Court can entertain a Writ petition against any order or direction passed or action taken by the State under Article 226 of the Constitution, it ought not to do so as a matter of course when the aggrieved person could have availed of an effective alternative remedy in the manner prescribed by law. Taking note of the said settled position of law and finding that all that the learned Single Judge did was to follow the said dictum while dismissing the Writ Petition, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/- MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE mns