Ganesh Kumar Tutika vs. The Assistant Commissioner

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by following a previous order of the same court dated October 16, 2024, in W.P.No. 18308 of 2024, which dealt with a similar circumstance. The Court directed the petitioner to file an application for revocation of the cancelled registration. Additionally, the petitioner was required to file draft returns that would be filed if the registration were restored, and to deposit all taxes due by July 30, 2025. The Registering Authority was directed to receive the tax payment before considering the revocation application. The respondent was to consider the revocation application and pass orders within 15 days of its receipt. If the application was accepted, the petitioner's registration would be restored, and all pending returns would need to be filed. The Court also provided a mechanism for manual filing of the revocation application if online filing presented difficulties. The operative direction was to consider the revocation application and restore registration upon compliance with the conditions.

Facts

The petitioner, Ganesh Kumar Tutika, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated March 6, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Srikakulam, cancelling his GST registration. The cancellation was purportedly due to non-filing of returns and non-payment of taxes. The petitioner sought a declaration that the cancellation order, with retrospective effect from June 30, 2022, was arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of constitutional provisions and principles of natural justice. The petitioner also sought the restoration of his registration certificate. The State of Andhra Pradesh and the Union of India were listed as respondents. The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order of cancellation of GST registration passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) with retrospective effect is arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 / State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? 2. Whether the cancellation of registration violates the principles of natural justice and the rule of law? The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was arbitrary, contrary to statutory provisions, and violated constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21, as well as principles of natural justice and the rule of law. The petitioner sought to quash the cancellation order and restore the registration. The respondents' arguments are not explicitly recorded in the provided text, but they would typically defend the validity of the cancellation order passed by the authority.