Oleena Mahila Samajam vs. State Tax Officer
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 16TH MAGHA, 1945 WA NO. 158 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT WP(C) 900/2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: OLEENA MAHILA SAMAJAM,AGED 63 YEARS 39/87 B, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE, KERALA- REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON T. SUJATHA, PIN - 673005 BY ADVS.M.K.HAJARA C.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE I, KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673006 2 GOODS AND SERVICES TAX NETWORK EAST WING, 4 TH FLOOR, WORK MARG-1 AEROCITY, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110037 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES TAX TOWER KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695002 SR.GP-V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.158/2024 -:2:- J U D G M E N T Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J.
The appellant is the writ petitioner. The first respondent cancelled the sales tax registration of the appellant as per Ext.P3 order on the ground that the appellant failed to file returns for a continuous period of six months. The appellant challenged Ext.P3 order before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. It is challenging the said judgment; the appellant is before us.
We have heard Adv.Hajara, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.V.K.Shamsudheen, the learned Senior Government Pleader. It is not in dispute that the appellant did not file returns for a continuous period of six months. Before cancellation of the registration, a notice under Rule 22(1), sub-rule (2A) of Rule 21A of CGST Rules, 2017 was issued to the appellant asking her to
WA No.158/2024 -:3:- furnish a reply by 4/5/2022. The appellant did not give any reply. According to the appellant, she did not receive the show cause notice. However, Ext.P4, the letter given by the appellant on 22/7/2022 to revoke the cancellation, would show that she came to know of the cancellation of the registration in July 2022. Still, the appellant did not challenge Ext.P3 before the appellate authority. Even the writ petition was filed after a period of two years. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The writ appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. However, if the appellant moves an application for fresh registration, the respondents shall consider the same in accordance with the law. DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE Rp
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.