Nasreen Hussain vs. Union Of INDIA And 3 Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Nasreen Hussain, operating as M/s Kefai Engineering Work, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Superintendent, Central Goods & Service Tax, Sivasagar, Assam, cancelling her GST registration. The petitioner contends that the cancellation order was passed without personal notice, and a show cause notice issued on 02.12.2021 was only uploaded to the department's website. Crucially, the petitioner claims that by the time she became aware of the suspension and cancellation, the period for filing an application for revocation or an appeal had expired. She argues this violates principles of natural justice and GST provisions, significantly impacting her livelihood. The petitioner also stated that she had already deposited statutory dues.
Held
The Court held that the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration was passed without considering the Supreme Court's order dated 10.01.2022, which extended the period of limitation for judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was excluded for limitation purposes. The cancellation order dated 10.01.2022 and the period for filing a revocation application fell within this extended period. The Court also noted that if the petitioner remained outside the GST regime, it could lead to non-deposit of statutory dues, which is not in the interest of revenue. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the departmental authority to re-consider the petitioner's prayer for revocation. The Superintendent was directed to inform the petitioner of any outstanding statutory dues, which, upon payment, would lead to the revocation of the cancellation. The ratio is that statutory authorities must consider Supreme Court orders on limitation extension due to the pandemic when passing orders, and a pragmatic approach should be taken to ensure compliance with tax obligations.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration by the Superintendent, Central Goods & Service Tax, Sivasagar, Assam, vide order dated 10.01.2022, was in violation of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and its Rules, due to lack of personal notice and the manner of communication of the show cause notice. 2. Whether the period of limitation for filing an application for revocation of GST registration or an appeal under the CGST Act, 2017, was extended by the Supreme Court's order dated 10.01.2022 in view of the COVID-19 pandemic, and if so, whether the petitioner could avail this extended period. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the cancellation was punitive, caused irreparable harm to her business, and was passed without affording her an opportunity of being heard, thus violating natural justice. She further contended that the notice was only uploaded online, and by the time she became aware, the limitation period for remedies had expired. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's order extending limitation periods due to COVID-19. Revenue's arguments: The learned standing counsel for the GST fairly submitted that similar matters had been disposed of by other Co-ordinate Benches with similar directions and that the writ petition could also be disposed of accordingly.
Sections Cited
Section 29, Section 30, Section 107, Rule 22(1), Rule 21A(2A)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Date : 03.02.2023 Heard Mr. R. S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned standing counsel for the GST.
This writ petition is filed impugning the order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the respondent No. 4, namely, the Superintendent, Central Goods & Service Tax, Sivasagar, Assam whereby the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled in terms of the provisions of Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 3. The petitioner is engaged in the business of execution of works contract, erection, fabrication etc. under the name and style of “M/s Kefai Engineering Work” having its registered Office at Kefai Complex, Nazira, P.O-P.S.- Nazira, District- Sivasagar, Assam. According to the petitioner, the order of cancellation of the GST registration was passed without any notice to the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner came to be informed that a notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner in Form GST REG-31 vide Reference No. ZA1812210020576 dated 02.12.2021. The said show cause was purportedly issued under Section 29(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Rules 22(1) and Rules 21A(2A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. However, vide the said notice, the GST registration of the petitioner was suspended on 02.12.2021 itself, namely, the date of issuance of the show cause notice. The petitioner is aggrieved
Page No.# 3/5 that there was no personal notice served upon the petitioner prior to suspension and cancellation of the GST registration rather a notice was simply uploaded in the website of the department. According to the petitioner, such actions of the respondent authority are in complete violation of the Rules of natural justice as well as the provisions of the GST Act and the Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this action of the respondent authorities is punitive in nature and has the effect of putting the business of the petitioner to a complete halt as without the GST registration he is unable to continue with his business as it is only source of his livelihood.
It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since there was no personal notice served on the petitioner he came to be aware subsequently that his GST registration has been suspended and that a notice to show cause was issued by respondent No.
However, the said notice was put up only on the website of the department and, therefore, by the time the petitioner became aware of the suspension of his GST registration and subsequent cancellation of GST registration, the period of limitation as prescribed under the Act had already elapsed for filing an application for revocation of the cancellation of GST registration under Section 30 or any appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. It is, therefore, submitted that there being no other alternative remedy available to the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate writ, direction and orders from this Court to the respondent authorities. It is further submitted that the petitioner had already deposited the statutory dues.
The learned standing counsel has fairly submitted that there are orders passed by the other Co-ordinate Benches in respect of the cancellation of GST registration and, therefore, this writ petition can also be disposed of in terms of similar directions.
Page No.# 4/5
The learned counsels for the parties have been heard. Pleadings on record have also been duly perused. The Apex Court by the order dated 10.01.2022 passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 21/2022 in Miscellaneous Application No. 665/2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020 with Miscellaneous Application No. 29/2022 in Miscellaneous Application No. 665/2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020, in view of the COVID-19 Pandemic situation which had severely affected the world including the country, had extended the period of limitation. In terms of the order dated 10.01.2022 of the Apex Court, the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 stood excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any General or Special Laws in respect of Judicial or Quasi Judicial proceedings and the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any shall become available w.e.f. 01.03.2022. 7. From the pleadings, it is seen that the order for cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner was issued on 10.01.2022. It is apparent that the application for cancellation of GST registration was passed on 10.01.2022 and the order for revocation of cancellation was required to be filed within 30(thirty) days therefrom as per the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017. Both these periods fall within the period mentioned in the Apex Court’s order dated 10.01.2022. Accordingly, it was incumbent on the respondent Authority to take note of the Apex Court’s order regarding Cognizance for extension of limitation and thereafter pass appropriate orders. There is another aspect required to be noticed. If the petitioner is not included within the GST regime, then any statutory dues that may be required to be deposited by the petitioner may not be deposited and which will not be in the interest of the revenue. Therefore, in order that the petitioner is required to comply with his statutory obligations of payment of taxes under the GST regime, it would be necessary for the departmental authorities to re-consider the prayer of the petitioner for revocation of his cancellation of GST registration keeping in view
Page No.# 5/5 the orders passed by the Apex Court regarding extension of limitation. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.01.2022 is hereby interfered with and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the departmental authority to re-consider his prayer for revocation of cancellation of GST registration.
It is directed that the respondent No. 4, namely, the Superintendent, Central Goods & Service Tax, Sivasagar, Assam will intimate the petitioner the total outstanding statutory dues standing in the name of the petitioner till the date on which his GST registration was cancelled. Upon such intimation, if any such outstanding statutory dues under GST is required to be paid the same shall be deposited by the petitioner without fail. Upon such payment of statutory dues under the GST by the petitioner, the cancellation of the GST registration in respect of the writ petitioner shall be revoked by the respondent authorities. Upon such revocation, the petitioner will continue to deposit his statutory dues, if any, periodically as mandated by the CGST Act, 2017. 9. With this direction, the writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above. No cost.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.