M/S Dharam Enterprise Through Rajeshbhai Vallabhbhai Tejani vs. Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise

Held

The Court held that the respondent no.2 had failed to comply with the directions of the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) in the Order-in-Appeal dated 26.10.2020. The Court noted that the petitioner had made multiple attempts to have the appellate order given effect to, but their request had not been attended to or redressed by the respondents. Without entering into the merits of the underlying GST matter, the Court deemed it appropriate to direct the respondents to comply with the directions issued by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals). The Court ordered that the adjudication be done strictly in accordance with law, addressing the merits of the matter and following the directions of the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), and that this be decided within six weeks from the date of the order. The issue of allowing the petitioner to apply for new registration with effect from 31.01.2020, including carry forward of ITC and claiming ITC from that date, was implicitly to be addressed during the adjudication process as per the appellate order.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Dharam Enterprise, engaged in real estate construction, inadvertently applied for cancellation of its GST registration, citing "ceased to be liable to pay tax." The Superintendent cancelled the registration effective January 31, 2020. Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed to the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), arguing the cancellation was done without considering the facts. The appellate authority, on October 26, 2020, directed a fresh order after considering submitted documents and advised the petitioner to submit an application in Form GST REG-21. The petitioner filed this application on November 27, 2020, but received no response. After sending a reminder on June 14, 2021, and still facing inaction for eight months, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking directions for the respondent to adjudicate the revocation application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent no.2 is obligated to adjudicate the application for revocation of GST registration filed by the petitioner in Form GST REG-21 in accordance with the Order-in-Appeal dated 26.10.2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals)? The petitioner argued that the respondent no.2 has failed to comply with the directions of the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) despite the petitioner submitting all necessary documents and applications within the prescribed time. The petitioner contended that eight months have passed without any response or adjudication, necessitating judicial intervention. The petitioner sought directions for the respondent no.2 to process the revocation application and allow for carry forward of Input Tax Credit and continued availment of the old scheme (12% tax with ITC). The revenue/State (respondent nos. 1 and 2) did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. However, their inaction in adjudicating the application was the subject of the petitioner's grievance.