BharatTaxGST

M/S Carino Holdings PVT LTD vs. The Superintendent Of Central Tax And Central Excise

Original PDF →
WP/1339/2023HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01003258202316 March 2023Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD5 pages
For Petitioner: SRI. PRADYUMNA HEJIB., ADVOCATEFor Respondent: MS. PREETHA M., CGC

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
- 1 - WP No. 1339 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1339 OF 2023 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/S CARINO HOLDINGS PVT LTD ( A COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DRIECTOR MR. K. M MEHBOOB AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS HAVING OFFICE AT GROUND FLOOR MALL OFFICE, CITY CENTER, KSR ROAD, DAKSHINA KANNADA 575 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRADYUMNA HEJIB.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE CENTRAL TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE (L VO 780) KADRI RANGE, MANGALURU SOUTH DIVISION PUNJA BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR LALBAGH, DAKSHINA KANNADA 575 0003. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX (APPEALS) NO.71, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI 590 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY MS. PREETHA M., CGC) Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - WP No. 1339 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING REFERENCE ZA291220083408J DATED 24/12/2020 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AND TO DIRECT HIM TO REVOKE THE CANCELLATION OF THE GST REGISTRATION OF THE PETITIONER (ANNEXURE-C). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner is aggrieved by the first respondent’s order dated 24.12.2020 [Annexure-C], and also the Order-in-appeal dated 25.11.2022 [Annexure-D]. The first respondent by the order dated 24.12.2020 has cancelled the petitioner’s GST registration and the second respondent, the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short the ‘CGST Act’] by the next impugned order dated 25.11.2022, has dismissed the petitioner’s appeal under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act on the ground of delay.

2.

Sri. Pradyumna Hejib, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court must

- 3 - interfere with the impugned order dated 24.12.2020 even if the petitioner’s appeal as against such order is dismissed on the ground that it is belated because of two reasons. He argues that the first respondent, for cancellation of the GST registration, has recorded his opinion that the petitioner’s registration must be cancelled, and his opinion is ostensibly on examination of the petitioner’s reply and the submissions at the time of hearing though the petitioner has neither filed his reply nor participated in the hearing. Sri Pradyumna Hejib next submits that during the relevant period [on account of the Covid-19 Pandemic] the petitioner’s cash flow was severely affected due to non-receipt of rents from the lessees/tenants resulting in default in payment of tax and non-filing of the GST returns in time.

3.

Ms. Preetha Mahadevan, the learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents, submits that the petitioner cannot really complain of

- 4 - lack of opportunity inasmuch as the petitioner does not dispute the service of show cause notice dated 24.11.2020 and if indeed the petitioner was constrained during this time, it would have been open to him to place necessary material before the second respondent.

However, Ms. Preetha Mahadevan in the light of the reasons recorded in Annexure-C cannot contest that despite recording that the petitioner has not responded to the show cause notice dated 24.11.2020, the second respondent has recorded an opinion based on the alleged examination of the reply and the submissions made at the time of personal hearing.

4.

This Court in these circumstances must opine that the petitioner has made out grounds that would justify interference. Hence, the petition is allowed, and the order dated 24.12.2020 [Annexure- C] is quashed on the condition that the petitioner files Returns within a period of four [4] weeks from

- 5 - the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Failing which, the cancellation order shall stand revived. Insofar as the petitioner’s grievance as against the order dated 25.11.2022 [Annexure-D] in view this Court’s finding as against Annexure-C, the same stands disposed of as not surviving for consideration. JUDGE

NV

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.