Arhaan Ferrous And Non Ferrous Solutions PVT LTD vs. The Superintendent
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
order or direction by declaring the action of the 1 St respondent in cancelling the registration of the petitioner under the COST/ APGST Act 2017 as illegal, arbitrary, high handed, without authority of law and juri iction, vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned proceedings of the 1®* respondent in Form GST REG-19 dated 14-11-2023. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Fligh Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned order of cancellation of registration passed by the 1®’ respondent dated 14-11-2023 in FORM- GST- REG-19 pending disposal of the writ petition as otherwise the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and hardship Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. V SIDDHARTH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel) Counsel for the Respondent No’s. 1 & 2: SRI Y N VIVEKANANDA The Court made the following ORDER;
W.P,No.31861/2023 < , APHC010618552023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) [3488] WEDNE AY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 31861/2023 Between; Arhaan Ferrous And Non Ferrous Solutions Pvt. Ltd ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The Superintendent and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VSIDDHARTH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel) 2. 3.Y N VIVEKANANDA I . The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri V. Siddharth Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Y.V. Anil Kumar, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the 3'^'^ respondent and Sri Y.N. Vivekananda, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 2. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the CGST Act. petitioner was served with a show The cause notice dated 14.10.2023 calling upon him to show cause as to why his registration should not be cancelled. The ground for such a course of action was recorded, is as follows; “Issues any invoice or bill without supply of goods and/or services in violation of the provisions of this Act, or the rules made there under leading to wrongful availment utilization of input tax credit or refund of tax.” or 3. The petitioner was given seven working days from the date of service of the said notice, to furnish his reply. The said notice also directed the petitioner to appear before the person issuing the notice, on 18.10.2023. It may also be recorded that the said show does not reveal as to who had issued the said show cause notice.
The petitioner filed his objections on 17.10.2023 before the 1 responde'nt, who is said to be the person who had issued the show cause notice. Thereafter, the 1®* respondent, by order dated 14.11.2023 cause notice RRR.J & HN,J passed an order of cancellation of registration. Aggrieved by the said order of cancellation, the petitioner has approached this Court.
The case of the petitioner, as contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, and the other pleadings, as elaborated by the learned Senior Counsel Sri V. Bhaskara Rao, representing Sri V. Siddharth Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is as follows: a) The order of cancellation does not contain any reasons and there is no mention as to whether the objections of the petitioner dated 17.10.2023 had been considered at all or not. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tirupathi-lll Circle, b) Tirupathi, is said to have addressed a letter dated 11.10.2023 to the 1 respondent stating that the petitioner, by utilizing the services of another registered dealer, had been evading payment of tax and had been I creating false invoices under which ineligible input tax credit could be claimed. The actual reason for cancellation is the letter of the c) Assistant Commissioner and not on account of the reasons set out in the show cause notice. It is stated that the proceedings for the cancellation of registration, if any, should have been taken up by furnishing a copy of ^ “ the letter dated 11.10.2023 to the petitioner and asking for objections. his d) The entire exercise was carried out on the basis of the letter of the Assistant Commissioner. However, another reason, which does not stand scrutiny, was utilized for cancelling the registration of the petitioner.
Sri Y.N. Vivekananda. learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that the show cause notice sets out the reason for initiating the process of cancellation of registration. He would further submit that the order of cancellation did contain the reasons. However, they were available on the portal and could have been by the petitioner. He submits that due to certain seen restrictions in the system, these reasons could not be downloaded. He would further submit that there is detailed reaspns were given in the order. no violation of principles of natural justice and 7. The undisputed fact, that can be seen from the record placed before this Court, is that a reason was set out in the show cause notice for initiating the process of cancellation of registration. The petitioner filed his objections to the said proposal. The 1®* respondent, without referring to any of those objections and without assigning any the order, had directed cancellation of registration of the petitioner. Such reasons in ^ • order, without assigning reasons and without considering the objections of the petitioner, is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice and requires to be set aside. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. The impugned order in Ref.No. ZA3711230257070, dated 14.11.2023 in Form GST respondent is set aside. However, this would not preclude the 1®* respondent from taking any steps against the petitioner, if there is any violation of the provisions of the COST Act. Needless to say, the registration of the petitioner will be restored. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. an 8. St REG-19 of the 1 K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //// / /section officer To, Central GST, Chittor-1, Chittor Range, Chittor
The Superintendent District, Andhra Pradesh. Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Tirupati Commissionerate,
The 9/86A, Amaravathi Nagar, M.R.Palli, Tirupati-517502, Andhra Pradesh
The secretary. Ministry of Finance, Union of India, Central Secretariat, New Delhi.
One CC to SRI. V SIDDHARTH REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]
One CC to SRI YN VIVEKANANDA, Advocate [OPUC]
One CC to SRI Y V ANIL KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC]
Two CD Copies VSN
HIGH COURT DATED:07/08/2024 ORDER WP.No.31861 of 2023 J- r 0 3 nr.T 2C?> a ¥. •i:.- i V- ★ X ^^SPAT- DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS ( ;c3rn;
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.