Sri Reddy Dhora Jitta vs. Superintendent Of Central Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, SriReddyDhoraJitta, a proprietor engaged in land development, had their GST registration (No. 36AMWPJ7648D1Z1) cancelled by the Superintendent of Central Tax, Malakpet Range, Hyderabad, via an order dated 24.12.2020. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's alleged failure to appear for a personal hearing. The petitioner contends they did not receive the show cause notice dated 15.12.2020, and therefore, could not file a reply. Despite this, the respondent's order erroneously mentioned considering the petitioner's reply. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation order, seeking its setting aside and revival of their GST registration.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 24.12.2020 was passed by the respondent without providing adequate notice and hearing to the petitioner, thus violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the question of filing an appeal did not arise. The Court found that it would serve the ends of justice to relegate the matter to the respondent for a fresh hearing. Accordingly, the Court set aside the cancellation order dated 24.12.2020. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a detailed reply within 15 days from the date of the order. Upon receipt of the reply, the respondent was directed to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing within six weeks from the date of receipt of the reply. The Court expressly did not decide on the merits of the GST registration itself, only the procedural fairness of the cancellation.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration vide order dated 24.12.2020 is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law, particularly in light of the alleged non-receipt of the show cause notice and violation of principles of natural justice? (Turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under GST law). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was passed mechanically and without application of mind because the show cause notice dated 15.12.2020 was not received. Consequently, no reply could be filed. The respondent erroneously recorded that the petitioner's reply was considered. The petitioner also argued that the order was vitiated by perversity. Respondent's arguments: The respondent contended that the order was passed during the COVID period and that the order of cancellation is appealable. The respondent argued that instead of filing an appeal, the petitioner directly approached the High Court.
Sections Cited
Not specified in the judgment
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER tvlalakpet-l GST Division Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that ih the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be ;1";;; i; i..ue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or.orderlr directiondeclaringtheactionoftherespondentsincancellingtheGST regstration certificite of the petitioner bearing 9ST I: 36AMWPJ7648D1Z! vide ca"ncellation order dated Zi.':Z.ZOZO as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law -and """."qrl"tfy set aside the same and revive the GST Registration portal of the petitioner ...RESPONDENTS IA NO: 1oF 2023 Petition under Section'151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be Pleased to direct the respondent to revive the GST Registrati on Portal of the Petitioner bearing GST No. 36AMWPJ7648DlZl pending disposal of the above writ Petition
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHITYAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.8233 of 2o23 ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan) Heard Ms. Kankar Ashwini Tara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.
By fiIing this petition under Article 226 ot tbe Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed legality ard validity of the order dated 24.L2.2O2O passed by the respondent cancelling the Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration of the petitioner. Petitioner is a proprietorship concern engaged in the business of development of land etc. After coming into force of GST, petitioner got itself registered under GST uide regqstration No.36AMWPJ7648DLZI. By the order dated 24.L2.2O2O, respondent cancelled the GST registration of the petitioner on the ground that the tax payer i.e., the petitioner had not appeared for personal hearing. I
.-! HCJ & NI'RJ W.P.No.8233 of 2O23
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that alleged show cause notice dated l5'12'2O2O was not received by the petitioner' Therefore' petitioner did not hle any reply' However, respondent referred to a show cause notice dated t5.12.2O2O and also the reply of the petitioner dated 24.12.2020- Observing that petitioner had not appeared for personal hearing, impugned order came to be passed' She
therefore submits that impugned order passed most 2 was mechanically and without any application of mind. It is in as much as when petitioner did not it did not receive show cause notice' vitiated bY PerversitY frle anY rePlY since respondent erroneously reiorded that he had considered the reply of the Petitioner'
On the other hald' Ms' B'Sapna Reddy' learned counsel for the respondent submits that the aforesaid order was passed during the COVID period' That apart' it is an appealable order. lnstead of filing appeal' petitioner has straight away approached this Court'
HCJ & N']'R.I
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, we are of the view that the impugned order was passed by the respondent without giving adequate notice and hearing to the petitioner. In such circumstances, we are of the view that question of frling appeal would not arise, there being violation of the principles of natural justice.
We are therefore of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if the petitioner is relegated to the forum of the respondent who should re-hear the matter and thereafter pass appropriate order in accordalce with law. 7 . Consequently, we set aside the order dated 24.12.2020 and grant liberty to the petitioner to frle a detailed reply which shall be filed within a period of 15 days from today. Upon receipt of the detailed reply from the petitioner, respondent shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law and after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of the reply. 3 t I
\:t ,.1 HCJ & NTRJ B. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 9 . As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. .N.CHANDRA SEKHAR AO ASSISTANT REGI RAR //// SECTION OFFICER
The Commissionerate, Superintendent of Central Tax, Malakpet Range Malakpet-l GST Division Hyderabad GST, Hyderabad.
One CC to SRl. KANKAR ASHWINI TARA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]
One CC to M/s. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI
Two CD copies I I To, B q M LS ,t' i I I I I I
HIGH COURT DATED:27tO312023 ORDER WP.No.8233 of 2023 1? fiPfl ?[23 ..-1. a 1, \.1.E S IAXI: + aJ {). ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS wf,'t 5'l
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.