M/S Ak Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Sh Ankit Kumar vs. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii/ Avato Ward 75 Zone 7 Delhi
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s AK Enterprises, through its proprietor Ankit Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated November 29, 2023, which cancelled its GST registration retrospectively from February 7, 2022. This cancellation followed a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated November 8, 2023, citing a report from the Directorate General of Goods & Services Tax Intelligence. The SCN stated that physical verification on October 26, 2023, found the petitioner to be non-existent at its registered address. The petitioner was required to reply within seven working days and appear before the proper officer on November 4, 2023. The petitioner failed to respond to the SCN or appear on the specified date. The GST registration was suspended from November 8, 2023.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner has an equally efficacious appellate remedy against the impugned order cancelling its GST registration. The Court reasoned that the statutory framework provides for an appeal against such orders, and this remedy is considered adequate. Therefore, the High Court deemed it inappropriate to entertain the writ petition. The Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal along with all relevant documents to support its contention that it was existing at its principal place of business. If such an appeal is filed within two weeks from the date of the order, the appellate authority is directed to consider it expeditiously on merits, uninfluenced by any delay. The petition was disposed of with these observations.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an order cancelling GST registration when an equally efficacious appellate remedy is available, under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner's primary contention, though not explicitly detailed in the judgment regarding specific arguments made, is implied by the filing of the writ petition itself, suggesting a grievance against the cancellation order. The petitioner likely sought to argue that the cancellation was erroneous or that there were procedural infirmities, thus justifying the invocation of writ jurisdiction. Revenue's Argument: The respondent revenue authority's stance, as reflected in the court's decision, is that the petitioner has an equally efficacious appellate remedy available under the statute. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable, and the petitioner should pursue the statutory appeal process.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2024 CM APPL. 51409/2024 (for preponement of hearing)
This is an application seeking advancement of the hearing scheduled on 14.11.2024. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the petition is taken up for hearing. W.P.(C) 5962/2024
The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 29.11.2023 (hereafter the impugned order), whereby the petitioner‟s GST registration was cancelled with retrospective effect from 07.02.2022. 4. The impugned order was issued pursuant to a Show Cause Notice This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/09/2024 at 14:34:01
dated 08.11.2023 (hereafter the SCN), whereby the petitioner was called upon to show cause why its registration should not be cancelled.
It is relevant to refer to the reasons that are set out in the said SCN. The same are reproduced as under: „1. In reference of letter dated 07.06.2023 received from Directorate General of Goods & Services Tax Intelligence Delhi Zone Unit, this office had cancelled your registration being non- existent at your PPOB. Further, in response of receipt of your application for revocation on AIO portal, PV was again conducted by this office on 26.10.2023 wherein you were again found to be non-existing at your registered address as per PV report dt. 26.10. 23. Copy of REG-30 is attached herewith for your kind reference.‟
The petitioner was called upon to furnish its reply within a period of seven working days from the service of the said notice and was directed to appear before the proper officer on 04.11.2023. The petitioner‟s GST registration was suspended with effect from the date of the said notice, that is with effect from 08.11.2023. 7. Concededly, the petitioner neither responded to the SCN dated 08.11.2023, nor appeared before the concerned officer on 14.11.2023. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, the proper officer had issued the impugned order.
The petitioner has an equally efficacious appellate remedy against the impugned order and therefore, we do not consider it apposite to entertain the said petition.
The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal along with all relevant documents in support of its contentions that it was existing at his principle place of business. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/09/2024 at 14:34:01
In the event such an appeal is filed within a period of two weeks from today, the same would be considered by the appellate authority expeditiously on merits uninfluenced by the question of delay.
The petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations.
The hearing scheduled on 14.11.2024 stands cancelled.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
SACHIN DATTA, J SEPTEMBER 04, 2024/cl
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/09/2024 at 14:34:01
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.