M/S Rajvansh Electricals vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is engaged in the business of selling electrical apparatus and is registered under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. On the ground that the petitioner did not file the necessary returns, the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled by respondent no.
Aggrieved by the same, the NC: 2024:KHC:45085 petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent no.
The same has been rejected on the ground that the appeal is barred by limitation by order dated 07.09.2022. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed.
The case of the petitioner is that she was not served with the notice as contemplated in law before passing of the impugned order by respondent no.
It is submitted that if an opportunity is granted to the petitioner, she would demonstrate before the authorities concerned as to how she is entitled for continuation of GST registration. She further submits that if there are any dues to be paid, she is willing to pay the same also.
Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the notices were indeed served on the petitioner and it is deliberate negligence on the part of the petitioner which resulted in an ex parte order being passed by respondent no.
It is further submitted that even after passing of the said NC: 2024:KHC:45085 order, the petitioner after a long delay preferred an appeal before respondent no.2 and as there was no justification for condonation of the delay, the appeal has been rejected. It is further submitted that a scheme was introduced by the Government to facilitate people like the petitioner to pay the GST and the scheme was not availed by the petitioner. On the said grounds, she prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
A perusal of the material on record clearly establishes the negligence on the part of the petitioner. However, taking into consideration that the original order passed by respondent no.1 cancelling the registration, has been done without hearing the petitioner and that the petitioner is having an ongoing business, this Court in the interest of justice, is of the opinion that the impugned orders be set aside and the matter requires to be remanded back to respondent no.1 subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the amount demanded by the authorities concerned while passing the assessment order NC: 2024:KHC:45085 dated 19.10.2024 (Annexure-R5 to the writ petition), which shall be subject to adjustment to be done subsequently based on the order to be passed after hearing the petitioner. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 25.11.2021 passed by respondent no.1 (vide Annexure-B to the writ petition) is hereby set aside; (ii) The impugned order dated 07.09.2022 passed by respondent no.2 (vide Annexure-C to the writ petition) is hereby set aside; (iii) The matter stands remanded back to respondent no.1 and the petitioner shall appear before respondent no.1 on 21.11.2024 at 2.30 p.m. without any further notice; (iv) The GST registration of the petitioner shall be restored, however subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the amount determined by respondent no.1 (vide Annexure R-5 to the writ petition); (v) The amounts so paid by the petitioner shall be adjusted subsequently depending upon the NC: 2024:KHC:45085 order to be passed by respondent no.1 after hearing the petitioner. (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE
hkh.
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.