M/S. Super Care Gardens vs. Superintendent Of Central Tax And 2 Others

Held

The High Court held that it would meet the ends of justice if the matter was remanded back to the Superintendent of Central Tax (Respondent No. 1) for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated November 26, 2019, and remanded the matter to Respondent No. 1. The respondent was directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner concerning the cancellation of GST registration afresh and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law. Crucially, the Court stipulated that Respondent No. 1 must provide the petitioner with a due opportunity of hearing while passing the fresh order. This exercise was to be completed within two months from the date of receiving the order. The petitioner was also permitted to submit all pending GST returns and pay any outstanding tax arrears as per the statute. No specific issue was left undecided.

Facts

M/s. Super Care Gardens, a partnership firm registered under the CGST and TGST Acts, 2017, had its GST registration cancelled by the Superintendent of Central Tax on November 26, 2019, due to non-filing of GST returns. A show-cause notice was issued on November 14, 2019, and the petitioner submitted a reply on November 23, 2019, which was not accepted. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the cancellation order. The petitioner's counsel submitted that an appeal could not be filed under Section 107 of the CGST Act due to the Managing Partner's severe health issues, including spinal surgery and subsequent amputation of both legs. The other partner, the Managing Partner's wife, was also unable to focus on business matters due to her husband's condition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 26.11.2019 passed by the Superintendent of Central Tax cancelling the GST registration of M/s. Super Care Gardens is illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the principles of natural justice, warranting a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ to set it aside and restore the registration? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they could not file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act due to the severe and incapacitating health condition of the Managing Partner, Mr. K. Israel, which prevented him from attending to business matters. The petitioner contended that the cancellation order was passed without proper consideration of these extenuating circumstances and thus violated principles of natural justice. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments presented by the respondents (Superintendent of Central Tax, State of Telangana, Union of India).