V. Chockalingam vs. The Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, V. Chockalingam, a partner in the firm Tvl. A.S. Vannia Nadar Grand Sons (GSTIN - 33AACFA7861R1ZZ), challenged an amended Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration certificate issued by the second respondent (Superintendent, Munichalai Road Range) on 17.12.2023. The petitioner contended that due to an internal dispute with the third respondent, he was unilaterally expelled from the partnership. Subsequently, the third respondent made an online application for amendments to the registration certificate. The petitioner argued that these amendments were carried out without verifying the facts and behind his back, without him being put on notice. The respondents 1 and 2 (Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise and Superintendent) stated that an online application was received on 14.12.2024, and the amended certificate was issued on 17.12.2023.

Held

The Court held that the amended registration certificate dated 17.12.2023 was issued without putting the petitioner, who was a partner in the firm, on notice of any such amendment. This procedural lapse rendered the amendment invalid. Consequently, the impugned amended registration certificate was set aside. The Court directed the second respondent to conduct an enquiry with the interested persons of the firm, Tvl. A.S. Vannia Nadar Grand Sons, to ascertain the facts. After conducting this enquiry, the second respondent is to pass orders on the application made by the third respondent for amendment. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the amended GST registration certificate issued by the second respondent on 17.12.2023 is liable to be quashed as it was issued without putting the petitioner, a partner of the firm, on notice. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the amended registration certificate was issued unilaterally by the third respondent due to an internal dispute, and the amendments were made behind his back without proper verification or notice. He relied on the principle that any significant change affecting a partner's status should not be made without their knowledge or consent. Respondents' contention: The learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that an online application was made on 14.12.2024, and based on that application, the amended registration certificate was issued on 17.12.2023. They did not present any argument regarding the necessity of notice to the petitioner.