Visala Kesari vs. The Superintendent

Held

The High Court, after considering the submissions and perusing the decisions in Nithya Constructions' case and M/s. Chenna Krishnamacharyulu Karampudi's case, set aside the impugned order dated January 19, 2022. The Court remanded the matter back to Respondent No. 1. The respondent authority is directed to reconsider the petitioner's grievance against the cancellation of her GST registration. This reconsideration must be done after providing the petitioner with a due opportunity of hearing. The Court stipulated that this decision should be taken within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Writ Petition was allowed to the extent indicated.

Facts

The petitioner, Visala Kesari, challenged an order dated January 19, 2022, passed by the Superintendent, Central Tax (Respondent No. 1), cancelling her Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration. The cancellation was based on the ground that she had not filed GST returns for more than six months. A show-cause notice was issued on December 22, 2021, to which the petitioner replied on January 1, 2022. However, the reply was not found satisfactory, leading to the cancellation order. The petitioner sought to suspend the cancellation order and revive her GST registration, allowing her to file returns for the period post-January 2022. She cited her husband's recent brain surgery as a reason for her inability to file an appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order of cancellation of GST registration passed by Respondent No. 1 is without jurisdiction, barred by limitation, and without authority of law, contrary to the Act, arbitrary, and in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice read with Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the suspension of the cancellation order and revival of her GST registration, along with permission to file GST returns for the period post-January 2022? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was passed without jurisdiction, was time-barred, arbitrary, and violated principles of natural justice. She contended that the issue was covered by this Court's decisions in Nithya Constructions v. Union of India and M/s Chenna Krishnamacharyulu v. Additional Commissioner, Appeals. She also submitted that her inability to file an appeal was due to her husband's critical brain surgery. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents, through their counsel, submitted that the Court may consider passing an appropriate order having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.