Lakhi Shah vs. Superintendent Ballygunge Range-V And Ors
Facts
The petitioner, Lakhi Shah, filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging an order dated September 13, 2021, passed by the Superintendent, Ballygunge Range-V, South CGST and CX, Kolkata, which cancelled the petitioner's GST registration. The respondent authorities argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy by applying for revocation of the cancellation order, but had not exercised it, and that the time limit for such an application had expired. The petitioner was aggrieved by the cancellation of their registration.
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an application for revocation of the impugned order dated September 13, 2021, before the concerned respondent authority within two weeks from the date of the order. The Court directed that if such an application is filed, the respondent authority shall not raise the point of limitation. Furthermore, the respondent authority was directed to consider and dispose of the revocation application by passing a reasoned and speaking order, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or their authorized representative, within four weeks from the date of filing the application. This order was confined to the petitioner's case.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ Court should entertain a writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy of revocation of cancellation of registration is available to the petitioner, and if so, whether the issue of limitation for such a remedy should be considered. The petitioner contended that the impugned order of cancellation of registration was arbitrary and that the writ Court should intervene. The respondent authorities argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under the GST law to apply for revocation of the cancellation order. They further submitted that the petitioner had failed to avail this remedy and that the time limit for filing such an application had expired, thus the writ petition should not be entertained.
Sections Cited
Section 29
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2022 ks WPA 20141 of 2021 sl. 25 Lakhi Shah Vs Superintendent, Ballygunge, Rnge-V, South CGST and CX, Kolkata & Ors.
Mr. Piyal Gupta … For the Petitioner.
Mr. K.K. Maiti, Mr. Tapan Bhanja … For the Respondent Authority.
Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13th September, 2021 passed by the respondent No.1 canceling the registration certificate of the petitioner under the relevant provision of GST.
Mr. Maiti, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the petitioner had alternative remedy by way of making application for revocation of the impugned order of cancellation, which the petitioner has not exercised and this writ Court should not interfere and at the same time he takes the point that the time to make such application for revocation has already been expired.
Considering the submission of the parties, this writ petition, being WPA 20141
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.