M/S. Manikanta Agro Industries vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Manikanta Agro Industries, a registered partnership firm engaged in rice milling, had its GST registration cancelled by the Superintendent of Central Tax (Respondent No. 3) via an order dated January 19, 2022. This cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to file GST returns for a continuous period of six months, as indicated by a show-cause notice dated January 5, 2022. The petitioner appealed this order to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II) (Respondent No. 2). However, the appeal was dismissed by an order dated December 28, 2022, on the grounds that it was filed beyond the extended period of limitation. As the GST Appellate Tribunal had not been constituted in Telangana, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging both the cancellation order and the appellate order.
Held
The High Court, following its previous decision in M/s. Chenna Krishnama Charyulu Karamprrdi, held that the matter should be remanded back to the authorities for a fresh consideration. The Court set aside the order dated January 19, 2022, passed by Respondent No. 3 (Superintendent of Central Tax) and the order dated December 28, 2022, passed by Respondent No. 2 (Joint Commissioner, Appeals-II). The case was remanded back to Respondent No. 3 for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The Court directed that Respondent No. 3 shall afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner while passing the fresh order. It was also clarified that during the remand proceedings, the petitioner would be permitted to submit all pending GST returns as per the statute. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The writ petition was allowed to the extent indicated.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated January 19, 2022, passed by the Superintendent of Central Tax cancelling the petitioner's GST registration, and the order dated December 28, 2022, passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II) dismissing the petitioner's appeal, are illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the CGST Act. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the cancellation of its GST registration and the dismissal of its appeal were illegal and arbitrary, violating constitutional rights. They relied on the High Court's previous decision in M/s. Chenna Krishnama Charyulu Karamprrdi v. Additional Commissioner (Appeals-I), which was followed in subsequent cases, where the matter was remanded back to the primary authority for reconsideration after providing an opportunity of hearing. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record any arguments made by the revenue or state respondents. However, their actions, as reflected in the orders passed by Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 2, indicate their stance that the cancellation was justified and the appeal was time-barred.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 109, Section 112
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
suspend the Order in ApJreal No. HY confirrning the ord the 3 rd res No.36,qBQFM2144 Couns,el for the Pe Couns el for the Re Couns el for the Re The Cr>urt made th rr Section 151 CPC praying that in the :ircunrstances stated in support of the petition, the High Court ma y be pleased to dated 28-12-2022 passed by the 2nd r€:i['on(lent vide Order )-GST-tVlD-AP2 -1 57 -22-23 in Appeal N<t',1 7 12022 (fVD) GST :r dated 19-01-2022 in Reference No.2l\:)601 220305932 of rondent cancelling the Regis:ri:tion Certificate 1ZZ of Pelitioner itioner: SRI MOHD MUKHAIRUDDIN ;pondent No.1: GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR GENERAL OF INDIA) ;pondent No.2&3: Ms. SAPNA REDDY, , following: ORDER (l)y. SOLICITOR
i ! IEF AND THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE N.TUKARAMII W.P.No.4381 of 2023 IUDGMELII, C,r tt)e Ho 'bh tt,c ClicJ.Jt$tit Ujlal ul,ut,tttt Fleard IvIr. Mohd. Mukhairuddin, leamed counsel for the petfuioner; lv1r. Gadi Praveen Kumar, leamed Depury Solicitor General of India for respondent No.1; and IvIs. Sapna Reddy, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and l. 2- This petition has been filed under Anicle 226 of the Corstitution of India assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 19.01.2022 passed by respondent No.3 cancelling the Goods and Service Tax (GST) registntion o[ the petitioner as well as the order-in-appeal dared 28.12.2022 passed by respondent No.2 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of respondent No.l dated 19.01.2022. 3. Petitioner before us is a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of rice milling. Al.ter comins into 2 forcc o[ tl e GST enacrmenrs, petitioner gor its(:li re1;istered wth the ,ST authority. In this connecrion, regi,;tration cenificate "'ras issued to the petitioner bcaring r.:gi:;rration No.l(,AIi( l; jD l44JlZZ.
Shor resporrde nt to shou, c: car-rcelled < contin uor.ls Nr.-l p:rssc rcgistntion suclr c.rrre I liabilitv ol t caLrse notice dated 05.01.2022 was issued by No.J to the petitioner calling upon tlLr: peritior.rcr ,rsc rs to why its GST registrati >n sh:r.ld not bc rr accounr of non-filing of GST rer::ns for a period of six months. Subsequentll,, r,:,sp<>ndent I rh,: order dated 19.01.2022 cancelliry thc GS'l' ot' the petitioner. Flowever, it was clarificd th:rt atio:r of re gistration would nor affect rf,: e xistinq .('p('titioner. 5. .\qeri ',td by thc aforesaid order dated ll,.O1.2orr. pcritiorrcr l rettred appeal before respondent l,l<:.2 undcr. Sc'ctiorr lOl :,t rhe Central Goods and Serviccs 'la> lrct,2Al7. C)n tlrt'gror ntl that the appeal was filed bey,nd tf c exr:ndccl
l' 3 1 i period of limiradon, respondent No.2 declined to admit the appeal; rather he dismissed the same aide the order dared 28.L2.2022. 6. Though a funher appeal before the appellate Tribunal is provided under Section Ll2 of the C-entral Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, we have been informed that such an appellate Tribunal has not been constituted in the State of Telangana. Therefore, the present wrir petition has been filed.
Issue raised in this writ petition is no longer tc.r integnt. In M,/s. Chenna Krishnama Charyulu Karamprrdi v. Additional Comrnissioner (Appeals-l)t, w.hich has been followed in subsequent decisions, this Coun had rem.ended the matter back to the file of the primary eurhoriry ro reconsider and pass appropriate order after giving opponunity o[ hearing to the petitioner. It vras held as follous: 'We have perused the order dated 19.0+.2022. This is an order passed by the fint appellate aurhority ' 2022(7) TMI 82
i I 1 I t I 4 und, r Section 107(1) of rhe CGST Act. As secr >n (1) of Secrion lO7 of the CGST Acl Li for iling appeal is three monrhs frorn rhe com ntLnicarion of the order appealed aeai_nst. p:r r,ub- r: rita :ion ,:late of Urder sub-, ectic,n (4) of Section 1OZ of the (EST rrct, the appe l,rre .rurhoriry may aliow the appeal to be prr,sented u.ithr r a funher period of one month, pt.:viried suffi i:nt :ause is showr bythe appellant. 'lh,rugh the lower appellate autlroriry ray be righr in holding th:rt rvhile it may allo.,,v filirg of an apper I bc yond the limitation of three montlrj for. a furth, r period of one month, therefore, by exterr;ion of lirnita ion bcyond the extended period of oft jnonrh delay revond the e xtendcd period of one montl r (:anr.or 5e co rl, rrrccl, s,c :ue of tlre view that such a stur,l taken Lrt- tcs rorrrlt,nr N-o.1 rn.ry advenell, affect the petir.ion,:r. ']'lris j rrx>t' so bcc.rtse respondent No.2 hld L.tt, / ttll c:rnce cil ttrc GS'l' registrntion of the petrtioner crn the srotn I ol' non-filing oI rctums and as GS.f 'liirural h.u n,r Lr,'cn cor.rsritured r-urder Section 109 ,ri the (-GSl ;\cr . petitioner. u,ould be left withotLr. arry n'nred'. '\'-' lurthcr furcl that the issue pert .ins ro cancell rrirxr of GST registration of the petitiore r . In the fac s rn,J ci1116151.nccs of the case, it rvorrld tr,: ju:;t .rnd pr rpcr ri the entire nritrer is remanded Lack tc
I I t I 5 petitioner and thereafter to pass appropriate orider in accordance with law. In the light of the above and without expressing any opinion on merit, we remand the matter back to the file of respondent No.2 to consider the grievance expressed by the petitioner against cancellation of GST registration and thereafter pass an appropriate onder in accordance with law. Needless to say, rt'hen the respondent No.2 hears the mamer on remand, petitioner shall submit all the retuns as Per the shtue.
Thus, following the above decision, we set aside the order dated lg.Ol.2O22 passed by rcsPondent No.3 as well as the order dared 28.72.2022 passed by respondent No.2 and remand the mamer back to respondent No.3 for a fresh decision in accordance with law. Respondent No.l shall afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner while passing the fresh order on remand. In the remand proceedings, it will be oPen to the petitioner to submit the GST retums as per the statute. ( I
6 9 It is clanfied that we have not expressed ar1, cpinion on ment 10. \)i/rir Pedtion is accordingly allowcd to ..he enenr indicrrted i rov(.. No r'osts. fu sequel, niiscelianeous petirions, pencling rf any stancl closr' ,*'rr"'T+"ittrtsixs "'' l:?iE::".'fR ? The Joint Cor GST and c9r Basheerbagr 'r The Supertnt AditYa Towet Secunderaoi 4 One CC to I
One CC to : INDIA) Aovc 6 One CC to 7. Two co co ,rrRuE coPYlr s,.ir,3* oFFlcER #, g*i' [rs;]i:-il?,:;,*,,u ffi ffi :1"-' "' *!t'grel,:*i: # Bral'*tlil H: J : $*11"'l' : "0 " **3Sgy^,,[Ali'"%'ipffi "s?ji'toJi!8t''*ERAloF ;:lA [?"*1"A t,DY Advocate toP ucj ies KKS GJP A lE S i/r:--\ ''6 .\ -()-\\ i[ ' ,'. i< /'\ -- n fl> /, :i t,-) 4 1 a 't. c' \. ,- HIGH COUR T DA]-ED:1610?12023 ORDER WP No.4381 ot 2023 ALL.OWING T REMANDING THE WP WITHOUT C )STS I 1 I I I I I I I I I i I ) : I i Il 1 t I I I i t23 / R 11 v .,) xor(+ (\$' h' ! I ifl )-
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.