Ms Turret Industrial Security PVT LTD Through Its Director B P Upadhyay vs. Union Of INDIA Through The Principal Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Turret Industrial Security Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging the order dated August 19, 2021, issued by the Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise, Jamshedpur, cancelling its GST registration. The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was passed without assigning reasons and without addressing the submissions made in its reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner stated that it had filed GSTR-3B returns for September 2019 but failed to file subsequent returns due to non-payment by clients, following an earlier cancellation of its GST registration on March 13, 2020, which was later restored on February 24, 2021, pursuant to a High Court order. The respondents contended that the cancellation order was issued after due notice and personal hearing, and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
Held
The High Court held that in the given facts and circumstances and the pleadings on record, the petitioner should avail of the remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Court explicitly stated that it would not make any comments on the merits of the plea raised by the petitioner against the order of cancellation. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority in accordance with the law. No specific findings were made on the alleged violation of principles of natural justice or non-application of mind, as the Court directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order for cancellation of GST registration dated August 19, 2021, issued by the Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise, Jamshedpur, is liable to be quashed and set aside for non-application of mind and violation of principles of natural justice, as it allegedly failed to deal with the petitioner's submissions in its reply to the show cause notice? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order suffers from a violation of the principles of natural justice and non-application of mind because the respondent No. 5 did not address the specific points raised in its reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner also sought directions for restoration of its GST registration and for the initiation of garnishee proceedings against its clients for recovery of dues. Respondents' Contention: The respondents argued that the impugned order was passed after due notice and personal hearing. They further contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, which it had not availed. The respondents submitted that the petitioner's plea of non-application of mind did not warrant interference by the High Court and that the petitioner should be relegated to the appellate remedy.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 79
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(T) No. 3831 of 2021 M/s. Turret Industrial Security Pvt. Ltd., a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at 43-A, I.C. Road, Contractors Area, P.O. Bistupur, P.S. Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum, through its Director, B.P. Upadhyay.
..… Petitioner
Versus 1.Union of India, through the Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST), Ranchi, having its office at Central Revenue Building, 5-A, Main Road, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Chutia, District-Ranchi- 834001. 2.Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Jamshedpur, Outer Circle Road, P.O. Bistupur, P.S. Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum-831001. 3.Deputy Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Jamshedpur, Outer Circle Road, P.O. Bistupur, P.S. Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum-831001. 4.Assistant Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Jamshedpur, Outer Circle Road, P.O. Bistupur, P.S. Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum-831001. 5.Superintendnet, CGST & Central Excise, Bistupur North Range, Jamshedpur, Outer Circle Road, P.O. Bistupur, P.S. Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum-831001. ..... Respondents
--------- CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan
--------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kr. Sinha, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. P.A.S.Pati, Adv.
--------- 10/12.07.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:-
(A) For quashing and setting aside the Order for cancellation of registration of the petitioner contained Reference No. ZA2008210154436 dated 19.08.2021 (Annexure-15) issued by the Superintendent, Jamshedpur Urban, Bistupur North Range (Respondent No.5), whereby the said respondent, without giving any reason and without dealing with any of the submission made by the petitioner in its show cause reply dated 09.08.2021 (Annexure-13) to the show cause notice dated 02.08.2021 (Annexure-12) cancelled the GST Registration Certificate of the petitioner with effect from 19.08.2021, on the ground that as the taxpayer has not filed their due GSTR-3B returns, their GST registration is liable to be cancelled, whereas the fact is that the petitioner has filed GSTR-3B returns for the period September, 2019, but could not file further GSTR-3B
2
returns due to non-payment of the outstanding dues by its clients, on account of earlier cancellation of GST registration dated 13.03.2020 (Annexure-2), which was restored after 11 months vide order for revocation of cancellation of registration contained in Ref. No. ZA200221045192F dated 24.02.2021 (Annexure-5) issued by respondent No.4 in pursuance of order dated 04.02.2021 (Annexure-4) passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(T) No. 2661 of 2020. (B) For a direction upon the respondents to immediately restore the GST registration of the petitioner, which is revoked vide order of cancellation of registration dated 19.08.2021 (Annexure-15) and to initiate garnishee proceedings under Section 79 (1)(c)(i) of the Central Goods and service Tax Act, 2017 for recovery of the due amount directly from the clients of the petitioner, as mentioned by the petitioner in its Letter dated 12.07.2021 (Annexure-11) submitted with the respondent No. 5, wherein it was specifically mentioned by the petitioner that “we would have no objection whatsoever if the past dues as mentioned in the enclosed annexure is directly deposited by our clients to the Government Treasury.”
(C) For a direction upon the respondents to immediately act upon the Letter being C. No. V (30) 111/Misc. B.Pur/2018/239 dated 17.07.2020 (Annexure-3) issued by the respondent No.4, whereby and whereunder the petitioner was intimated that if the amount of GST liability and interest mentioned therein is not paid within 15 days of receipt of the letter, coercive action will be initiated under Section 79(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 to recover the self-declared government dues and the petitioner has already provided the details of the clients, who are the registered assessee of the respondent department
(D) For any other relief (s), order(s), direction (s) which may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.
After restoration of the GST registration pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(T) No. 2661/2020 (Annexure-4) the registration of the petitioner has been cancelled by the respondent No.5 by impugned order dated 19th August, 2021 (Annexure-15) upon consideration of petitioner’s reply pursuant to the show cause notice dated 2nd August, 2021 (Annexure-5).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent
3
No.5 has not dealt with the specific points taken in his reply while cancelling the GST registration once again. Therefore, the order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice and non-application of mind.
Respondents have filed counter-affidavit. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that after the matter was remanded the impugned order of cancellation of registration has been passed after due notice and after giving him personal hearing. There is a provision of appeal under Section 107 of CGST Act which the petitioner has not availed before approaching this Court. The contention of the petitioner for seeking interference by the Court is not one of violation of principles of natural justice but alleged non-application of mind to the plea raised by him in his reply. Therefore, petitioner may be relegated to the alternative remedy of appeal.
We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties.
In the facts and circumstances of the case noted above and the pleadings on record, we are of the view that petitioner should avail of the remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. We, therefore, do not make any comments upon the merits of the plea raised by the petitioner against the order of cancellation.
The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority in accordance with law.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.) Amardeep/Pramanik
Reproduced from the public record of the Jharkhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.