M/S. Chenna Krishnama Charyulu Karampudi vs. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals-1) And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Krishnama Charyulu Karampudi, a proprietorship firm engaged in works contract services, had its GST registration cancelled by the Superintendent of Central Tax, Saroor Nagar Range (Respondent No. 2) on January 22, 2019. The petitioner appealed this cancellation to the Additional Commissioner (Appeals-1) (Respondent No. 1). Respondent No. 1 dismissed the appeal on April 19, 2022, holding that it was filed beyond the period of extended limitation. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the appellate order and seeking the revival of its GST registration. The petitioner argued that the GST Tribunal had not yet been constituted, leaving them without a remedy.
Held
The Court held that while the appellate authority might be technically correct in observing that an appeal cannot be filed beyond the extended period of one month under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, such a strict interpretation could leave the petitioner without any remedy, particularly since the GST Tribunal has not been constituted. The Court noted that the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration was done suo motu on the ground of non-filing of returns. Given these circumstances and the absence of a GST Tribunal, the Court found it just and proper to remand the entire matter back to Respondent No. 2 (Superintendent of Central Tax) to reconsider the petitioner's case and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The operative direction was to remand the matter to Respondent No. 2, with a direction that the petitioner shall submit all pending returns when the matter is heard on remand.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 112 of the CGST Act, considering the non-constitution of the GST Tribunal? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 112 of the CGST Act). 2. Whether the appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeal as being filed beyond the extended period of limitation, thereby denying the petitioner an opportunity to be heard on merits? (Question of law, turning on Section 107 of the CGST Act). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the GST Tribunal, as contemplated under Section 112 of the CGST Act, has not been constituted, thus leaving them without an effective alternative remedy. They contended that the appellate authority's dismissal of their appeal solely on the grounds of limitation, without considering the merits, was arbitrary and illegal, especially given the lack of a functional tribunal. They also argued that the cancellation of registration by Respondent No. 2 was suo motu and arbitrary. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the respondents.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 112
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstanc the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the fllSl Court may bq Suspend the orders ot tne ippeaio'rder dated 1g:O42022 of the 1't ,nJ'Oir""t the 2nd Respondent to Revive the GST Registration p o"titlonu.GSTNo.36AGUPKl35lDlZB,pendingdisposalofthe ;;it;";.;th"*ise ft," Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hards Counset for the Petitioner: SRl. VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHIIYAN THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.27071 of 2022 ORDER: eer the Hon'ble Sri JLlstice Ujjal BhuAan) Heard Mr. M. Venkatram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. B. Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for the resPondents.
By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner seeks quashing of order-in- appeal dated i9.04.2022 passed by respondent No' 1'
Petitioner is a proprietorship firm engaged in the business of carrying out works contract services' It is registered with the Goods and Services Tax (GST) authorities in the State of Telangana. By the order dated 22.Ol.2olg, respondent No.2 canceiled registration of the petitioner under GST. Against this order of cancellation, petitioner preferred appeal before respondent No' I assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 22.Ol.2olg. By the order dated 19.04.2022' respondent I AND __-_--
T]B.I & SN.I lv.P.No.2707l of 2022 No.1 as the appellate authority has held that the appeal was filed beyond the period of extended lirhitation. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Hence, the writ petition.
On a query by the Court as to why petitioner has not approached the Goods and Services Tax Tribunal (GST Tribunal) under Section 712 of the Central Goods anci Services Tax Act, 2017 (briefly, 'CGST Act' hereinafter), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till date no GST Tribunal has been constituted.
We have perused the order dated 19.04.2022. This is an order passed by the first appellate authority under Section 1 07(1 ) of the CGST Act. As per subsection (1) of Section 107 of the CGST Act, limitation for filing appeal is three months from the date of communication of the order appealed against. Under subsection (4) of Section 107 of the CGST Act, the appellate authority may allow the appeal to be presented within a further period of one month, provided sufficient cause is shown by the appeliant. I
UBJ & SNJ ll.P.No.2707lof2022 Though the lower appellate authority may be right in J I 7 holding that while it may allow filing of an appeal beyond the limitation of three months for a further period of one month, therefore, by extension of limitation beyond the extended period of one month delay beyond the extended period of one month cannot be condoned, we are of the view that such a stand taken by respondent No.l may adversely affect the petitioner. This is more so because respondent No.2 had suo motu cancelled the GST registration of the petitioner on the ground of non_filing of returns and as GST Tribunai has not been constituted under Section 109 of the CGST Act, petitioner wouid be left without any remedy.
We further find that the issue pertains to cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper if the entire matter is remalded back to respondent No.2 to reconsider the case of the petitioner and thereafter to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. ( (
4 UB.] & SNJ W.P.No.2707l of 2022 g. 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 therea-fter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Needless to say, when the respondent No'2 hears the matter on remand, petitioner shall submit ail the returns as per the statute
Writ petition is accordingly disposed of' 1 1 . Miscelianeous applications pending' if any' shali stand ciosed' However, there shall be no order as to costs' s D/' P'PABYiilf '-Et'EiRlX ///I €w secrioN oFFlcER The Additional Commissioner (Appeals-1 )' O/o the Commissioner of i llti'il J'l"o cl;il;i t;,., epdelti-t' Hvdirrabad commissionarate' Basheerbaqh, HYderaPad-500004' The Suoerinteno"nt ot c"ntiuji?, Saroor Nagar.Range' Saroor Nagar GST o i iii"li. i', "l,jri" Jir v c s r c o m m i i s io n e rate' Fl vd e ra ba d #""8i i; s;YvJ,irdtta. neiov rvranrur' Advocate, [oPUCl One CC to Sri B Narasimha Sarma' Aovocale [uru\'l Two CD CoPies One Spare CoPY To, 1. , 3. 4.q 6 CHR JM
HIGH COURT DATED:2710612022 ORDER W.P.No.27071 of 2022 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS .\ i{E r iA fa ?- o ,r^. J. t t c (.) g 7 JUL 2[22 ofs pitc d o .b e L I k
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.