Md. Nuruddin Ahmed Pathan vs. The Union Of INDIA And 7 Ors

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing Respondent No. 6, the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Tezpur Division, to revisit the notice dated January 19, 2022 (likely a typo and referring to the demand notice or related communication), and to consider the grievances projected in the petitioner's representations dated December 14, 2022, and January 19, 2022. The Court ordered that an appropriate order(s) be passed after giving the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing. It was clarified that no coercive action would be initiated against the petitioner until a reasoned order is passed by Respondent No. 6. The Court did not explicitly decide on the correctness of the 28% GST rate or the restoration of registration, but directed the authority to reconsider these aspects. The ratio decidendi is that authorities must provide a personal hearing and pass reasoned orders when considering representations regarding tax demands and registration issues, especially when extenuating circumstances like health problems are cited.

Facts

The petitioner, Md. Nuruddin Ahmed Pathan, a contractor, had his GST registration cancelled on August 10, 2021, for failing to file six consecutive returns. Subsequently, he received a demand notice dated October 19, 2022, for Rs. 1,001,1892/- GST, calculated at 28%. The petitioner claims he could not file returns due to severe health issues, including a cardiac arrest before the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent restrictions. He also contends that the applicable GST rate should be 12%, not 28%. The petitioner has already paid over Rs. 10,80,000/- and is willing to pay the remaining dues in installments. He submitted representations dated December 14, 2022, and January 19, 2022, seeking consideration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the GST registration of the petitioner, Md. Nuruddin Ahmed Pathan, should be restored, considering his health issues and subsequent representations? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the provisions for restoration of registration). 2. Whether the demand notice dated October 19, 2022, which levies GST at 28%, is legally sustainable, or if the applicable rate should be 12% as contended by the petitioner? (Question of law, concerning the correct classification and applicable GST rate). 3. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to pay the outstanding GST amount in installments? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the discretion of the authorities to allow installment payments). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that his failure to file returns was due to severe health problems and the COVID-19 pandemic. He contended that the GST rate should be 12% as per laid down norms, not 28%. He expressed willingness to pay the due GST in installments and sought directions to consider his representations. Revenue's arguments: The GST authorities submitted that there is a scheme for restoration of GST registration and that the prayer for installment payments should be considered by the competent authority. They had no objection if the court directed the respondents to revisit the demand notice regarding the GST rate and pass appropriate orders on registration restoration and installment payments.