M/S. Indrasena Reddy Sada vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer And Another

[ 3311 l HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Originat Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAYOF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO:823s oF 2023 Between: M/s lndrasena Reddv Sada, .D.No.7r 1ol2, Spredid Aparna parm Meadows. Kompallv, Medchar. Reoresented oy iti eroprr6toi,''tiil.lnoru..n, Reddy sada s/o. Sri Linga Reddy Sada. ' AND ...PET|T|ONER 1. The Deputy Stale Tax Officer, Matkajgiri _ll Circte, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. The State of Telangana, Represented-by its principal Sb"r6hr, f n"rlnrul, Secretarial, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition Under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High'c,i,r.t ,.v'0" pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction, more particurarry one in the nature of writ of rr,randamus, decraring the impugned oioer aatei.z loizdzi pas.sed by the 1st respondent in ref No,zsoto2t-0st 7903 canceilinj th; esr registration, as irregar and unjustified besides being viorative of p;n;ipre;; natural justice and consequently be pleased to ser aslde the same ano oiiecr rsi respondent to activate the registration. |.A.NO:1 OF 2023 Petition Under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, t. uigt court may oe prea"eJ to direct the respondent to activate the registration dluring the pendency of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.B.SRINIVAS Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI.K.BHASKAR REDDY, ADV FOR The cou( made the fotrowing osRLL'VENKATESWARA RAo l I I i i THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHIIYAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.8235 of 2023 QBDEB: Pet the Hon'ble the Chief JusLi:e uJJat BttutJo,r) IJeard Mr. B.Srinivas. learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr. L.Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for lhc respondenLs 2. 81'filing this petition under Article 226 of the validit-1' of the order dated 21 .1O.2O21 passed bir Constitution of India petitioner has assailed legalitl, and rcspondent No. t cancelling the Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration r.rf the peLitioner. 3. Petitioner is a proprictorship firm carrying on the business of renting out of immovable propert]'. After enactment of GST legislations, it got itself registered before 2 the GST authorities bearing registration No.36AJYPS6293C1ZG 4. Show cause notice dated O2.O9.2O21 was issued by respondent No.1 to the petitioner to show cause as to why GST registration of the petitioner should not be cancelled on the ground that petitioner did not file GST returns for the last six months. Petitioner could not file reply to the show cause notice for the reasons mentioned in paragraph 7 of the writ affidavit. Therefore, vide the impugned order dated 21.1O.2021, respondent No. 1 cancelled the GST registration of the petitioner. 5. From a perusal of the impugned order, r,r,e find that respondent No.1 had referred to alleged reply of the petitioner dated 03. lO.2021 , which thc petitioner submits was not filed. However, in the very next line respondent No.l has recorded that no reply to show cause notice was submitted by the petitioner. While in the first line respondent No.1 mentioned that petitioner had submitted J I reply dated O3.lO.2O2l, in the very next line it is stated that no reply to show cause notice was submitted 6. This only goes to show total non-application of mind on the part of respondent No.l and that the impugned order was passed most mechanically. Cancellation of GST registration would have an adverse impact on the business activities of the petitioner. Virtually it would have the eifect of immobilising the petitioner by restraining it from carrying out any business. In such circumstarces, it was necessary on the part of respondent No'1 to have given a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before cancellation of GST registration. 7. That being the position, we set aside the impugned order dated 21 .lO.2O2l and remit the matter back to the file of respondent No.1 to rehear the matter and thereafter to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 8. Let the petitioner submit its reply within a period of fifteen (15) days from today whereafter respondent No.l { 4 shall procee d .de nouo and pass appropriate order in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The above exercise shall be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the reply filed by the petitioner. However, if no reply is hled by the petitioner, it would be open to respondent No.l to pass such order as may be deemed fit and proper. During the remand proceedings it would be open to the petitioner to file the related returns. 9. This disposes of the writ petition. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there sha1l be no order as to costs. l I tl I SDIA.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR qb SECTION OFFICER 1. The Deputy State Tax Officer and another, Malkajgiri -ll Circte, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. The Principal Secretary, (Revenue), Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad. 3. One CC to SRI.B.SRINIVAS, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI.L.VENKATESWARA RAO, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies //TRUE COPY// To SA SB AN). HIGH COURT DATED:2710312023