M/S. Krandasi Retailers (Opc) Private Limited vs. Superintendent GST (Central Tax)

Held

The High Court did not make a definitive finding on the legality or procedural propriety of the cancellation order itself, as the matter became infructuous. The Court noted the petitioner's submission that the cancellation of its GST registration had been revoked and the registration had been restored, making the company active. In light of this development, the Court found that nothing remained for adjudication in the writ petition. Therefore, the Court closed the writ petition without passing any substantive order on the merits of the cancellation. The ratio decidendi, in this context, is that where the grievance of the petitioner is redressed by the respondent authority during the pendency of the writ petition, the petition becomes infructuous and can be closed. The Court made no order as to costs.

Facts

The petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the cancellation of its GST registration by the 1st Respondent, an authority under the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The cancellation order was dated January 10, 2022. The petitioner contended that the cancellation was illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and in violation of principles of natural justice, specifically citing Section 29(2) of the Act. The High Court, in an interim order dated September 29, 2022, noted that the registration was suspended on December 29, 2021, the same date as the show cause notice was issued, without waiting for the petitioner's reply. The Court found this practice, along with the use of 'stereo type printed orders of cancellation', required consideration and granted interim suspension of the cancellation order. Subsequently, on October 17, 2022, both parties informed the Court that the GST registration had been revoked and restored, rendering the petition infructuous.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration by the 1st Respondent, by order dated January 10, 2022, was illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and in violation of the principles of natural justice, contrary to the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the cancellation was bad in law because the registration was suspended with effect from December 29, 2021, the same date as the show cause notice was issued, without awaiting the petitioner's explanation. This action, they contended, violated principles of natural justice and the relevant provisions of the Act. The petitioner sought revocation of the cancellation and restoration of its GST registration. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state respondents regarding the merits of the cancellation or the petitioner's contentions. However, the respondents were represented and sought time to get instructions in the initial stages.