Kalasaiah Annappa vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 30.12.2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, cancelling the petitioner's GST registration, is quashed due to a clear non-application of mind. The reasoning was based on the contradictory statements within the order itself, which mentioned both the absence of a reply to the Show Cause Notice and the existence of a reply dated 12.12.2022. This inconsistency indicated that the authority had not properly considered the petitioner's situation before proceeding with the cancellation. The Court allowed the petition on the condition that the petitioner must file all necessary declarations and discharge any outstanding dues within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order. If the petitioner defaults on these conditions, the respondents are at liberty to initiate appropriate legal action.

Facts

The petitioner, Kalasaiah Annappa, proprietor of a proprietorship concern, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.12.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Respondent No. 2). This order cancelled the petitioner's GST registration (GSTN No. 29APEPA0844H1Z6). The cancellation was based on the ground that the petitioner had not filed returns for a continuous period of six weeks. The petitioner's counsel argued that returns were filed up to December 2022 on 20.06.2023. The impugned order noted that no reply was filed to the Show Cause Notice, yet it also referred to a purported reply dated 12.12.2022, indicating a lack of application of mind by the authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration is liable to be quashed for non-application of mind by the authority, as contemplated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order suffers from a non-application of mind because it simultaneously records that no reply was filed to the Show Cause Notice and also refers to a purported reply dated 12.12.2022. This contradiction demonstrates a failure by the authority to properly consider the facts before passing the cancellation order. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state. However, the Assistant Commissioner passed the order cancelling the registration.