Pragati Distributors vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals-Ii) Central Tax, Pune And Ors
Facts
The Petitioner, Pragati Distributors, challenged an order dated 31 May 2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals-I), Respondent No.1. This appellate order dismissed the Petitioner's appeal against an earlier order dated 15 April 2021. The Appellate Authority observed that the Petitioner should have filed an application under Section 30 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) for revocation of cancellation of registration. The Petitioner relied on a previous High Court decision in Balaji Engineering Works v. Union of India. The Court adjourned the matter for the Petitioner to decide whether to follow the course of action outlined in the Balaji Engineering Works case. The Petitioner's counsel stated they would follow the same course.
Held
The Court, considering the conspectus of the matter and the Petitioner's submission to follow the precedent set in Balaji Engineering Works v. Union of India, decided to accord an opportunity to the Petitioner. The Petitioner is permitted to file an application before the Authority under Section 30 of the CGST Act within 15 days from the date of the order. The Authority is directed to consider this application within the limitation period and decide it on merits expeditiously. The ratio decidendi is that when a party expresses willingness to pursue a remedy as permitted by a High Court in a similar factual matrix, and the revenue does not object, the Court may grant such an opportunity to ensure a decision on merits.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner should be granted an opportunity to file an application under Section 30 of the CGST Act for revocation of cancellation of registration, considering the dismissal of their appeal by the Appellate Authority. The Petitioner argued that they should be given an opportunity similar to the one granted in the case of Balaji Engineering Works v. Union of India, where the Court allowed the petitioner to file an application under Section 30 of the CGST Act. The Petitioner stated their intention to follow this course of action. The Revenue did not record any specific arguments against this course of action in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 30
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
skn 1 61-WP-15656.2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 15656 OF 2022
Pragati Distributors. … Petitioner. V/s. Additional Commissioner (Appeals-I) and others. … Respondents. Mr.Ajay A. Joshi for the Petitioner. Mr.Dhananjay B. Deshmukh i/b. Mr.Ram Ochani for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND ABHAY AHUJA, JJ. DATE : 7 February 2023. P.C. : Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 31 May 2022 passed by Respondent No.1 in the appeal filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 15 April 2021. The Appellate Authority while dismissing the appeal has observed that the Petitioner ought to have filed application under section 30 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for revocation of cancellation of the registration. The Petitioner had relied upon the SANJAY KASHINATH NANOSKAR SANJAY KASHINATH NANOSKAR Date: 2023.02.15 15:28:57 +0530
skn 2 61-WP-15656.2022.doc decision o
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.