Chanda Prop M/S Hanika Marketors vs. The Superintendent Of Central Taxes And Anr

Held

The Court held that while the petitioner's appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation, their assertion of bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause for not attending the hearing before Respondent No. 1 warranted a justice-oriented approach. The Court decided to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter back to the respondents to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner. The Court reasoned that the appellate order, being summarily rejected as time-barred, did not merge with the original cancellation order and therefore did not impede the Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The Court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner's GST registration within four weeks, subject to the petitioner filing GST returns and paying up-to-date taxes within the same period. The Court explicitly stated that this order was made in the peculiar facts and circumstances and should not be treated as a precedent.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Hanika Marketors, obtained a GST Registration Certificate on April 25, 2019. The Superintendent of Central Taxes (Respondent No. 1) issued a show-cause notice on January 15, 2023, to which the petitioner replied. However, the petitioner failed to appear for a personal hearing before Respondent No. 1 due to bona fide reasons and unavoidable circumstances. Consequently, Respondent No. 1 passed an order on March 6, 2023, canceling the petitioner's GST registration. The petitioner filed an appeal, but it was rejected as barred by limitation. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka, seeking to quash both the cancellation order and the appellate order, and to restore their GST registration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 06.03.2023 passed by Respondent No. 1, canceling the petitioner's GST registration, is liable to be quashed? The petitioner argued that their inability to attend the personal hearing before Respondent No. 1 was due to bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause. The revenue did not present specific arguments on this point in the judgment. 2. Whether the order dated 29.08.2024 passed by Respondent No. 2, rejecting the petitioner's appeal as barred by limitation, is liable to be quashed? The petitioner contended that the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred should not preclude the court from exercising its writ jurisdiction, especially given the circumstances leading to the cancellation. The revenue did not present specific arguments on this point in the judgment. 3. Whether the petitioner's GST registration (No. 29BPJPC0018P1ZR) should be restored? The petitioner sought a direction for restoration. The revenue did not present specific arguments on this point in the judgment.