R. Z. Malpani vs. The Union Of INDIA Through The Secretary And Others

Facts

The Petitioner, R.Z. Malpani, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by Respondent No. 4. The core of the dispute revolves around the Petitioner obtaining three GST registration certificates under the same PAN number. The Respondents (Union of India and others) argued that obtaining multiple registrations for the same PAN could not be an innocent act and suggested imposing costs. The Petitioner's counsel argued that the acquisition of three registrations might have been inadvertent and contended that the Petitioner could not appear on three previous occasions due to certain reasons. The Petitioner's counsel also cited the judgment in Regent Overseas Private Limited vs. Union of India, suggesting the Department should have allotted more hearing dates.

Held

The Court expressed doubts as to whether the Petitioner could be said to have inadvertently obtained three registration certificates on the basis of a single PAN number. However, taking into account the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the Department, the Court decided to dispose of the Writ Petition. The impugned order dated 08.03.2023 was set aside, and the proceedings were remanded to the office of Respondent No. 4. The Court directed the Petitioner to donate Rs. 5000/- to the Advocates' Association of Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, within three weeks. The Petitioner was also directed to appear before Respondent No. 4 on 28.06.2023 at 12:00 noon and refrain from seeking adjournments except for circumstances beyond control. The Petitioner was further directed to submit written notes of submissions and address orally. Respondent No. 4 was ordered to pass a reasoned order within 30 days after the hearing concluded. The Petitioner was granted liberty to avail statutory remedies if aggrieved by the subsequent order. The issue of whether the Petitioner inadvertently acquired three registrations was not definitively decided, but the proceedings were allowed to continue with specific directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner inadvertently acquired three registration certificates under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, for the same PAN number? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner's counsel argued that the acquisition of three registrations might have been inadvertent. They also contended that the Department should have allotted four hearing dates, referencing the Gujarat High Court's decision in Regent Overseas Private Limited vs. Union of India, 2017 (6) GSTL 15. The Petitioner refuted the Department's allegations regarding the conduct. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue's counsel submitted that the Petitioner's conduct in obtaining three registration certificates under the same PAN could not be considered an innocent act, deeming it unbelievable to have been done by mistake or inadvertence. They argued for the imposition of costs on the Petitioner and for the matter to be remanded for fresh decision, noting the Petitioner had sought unnecessary adjournments.