M/S. Aviserv Airport Services INDIA Private Limited vs. The Superintendent Of Central Tax And 5 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Aviserv Airport Services India Private Limited, a company engaged in 'Works Contract' (Porter Service), had its Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration cancelled suo motu by the Superintendent of Central Tax (1st respondent) on January 24, 2022. This action was based on a show cause notice dated September 2, 2021, alleging failure to submit GST returns for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner's reply dated October 3, 2021, was deemed unsatisfactory. An appeal filed by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals-I) (3rd respondent) was dismissed on January 12, 2023. As no appellate tribunal was constituted in Telangana, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging these orders.
Held
The High Court, following its previous decisions in similar cases, held that a further opportunity should be granted to a taxable person whose GST registration is cancelled suo motu. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court set aside the order dated January 24, 2022, cancelling the GST registration and the order dated January 12, 2023, dismissing the appeal. The matter was remanded back to the file of the 1st respondent (Superintendent of Central Tax) for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. The 1st respondent was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing any consequential order. During the remand proceedings, the petitioner would be at liberty to submit the required returns as per the statute. The ratio decidendi is that principles of natural justice necessitate a proper hearing and consideration of the taxpayer's response before suo motu cancellation of GST registration, and in the absence of a functional appellate tribunal, the High Court can intervene.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration and the subsequent appellate order upholding it are illegal, arbitrary, against principles of natural justice, and without jurisdiction, particularly in light of the petitioner's submission of a reply to the show cause notice? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the cancellation of its GST registration and the dismissal of its appeal were illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice, and without jurisdiction. They argued that they had submitted a reply to the show cause notice, and the authorities failed to consider it properly. The lack of a constituted appellate tribunal in Telangana forced them to approach the High Court. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, represented by the Superintendent of Central Tax and other GST authorities, argued that the cancellation was justified due to the petitioner's failure to file GST returns for six consecutive months. They maintained that the petitioner's reply was not satisfactory and that the appellate order was correctly passed.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 112
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following : ORDER
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHIIYAN AND WRIT PETITION No.4O27 of 2023 ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhugan) Heard Mr. Ramchander Chakrala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. We have also heard Mr. G.Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.6 2. 81, filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed legality and validity of the order dated 24.01.2022 passed by the 1"t respondent canceliing Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration of the petitioner as well as the order-in-appeal dated 12.01.2023 passed by the 3.d respondent dismissing
the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 24.OI.2022. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
')
Petitioner before us is a company registered under the Companies Act, 2013 and carrying on the business of Works Contract' (Porter Service). After coming into force of the GST enactments, petitioner got itself registered with the GST authority whereafter it was granted the GST registration bearing No.GSTIN/ UIN:364A0CA7 7 9 4 ElZ6. 4. 1st respondent issued show cause notice dated 02.O9.2021 to the petitioner to shor.r, cause as to why its GST registration should not be cancelled on the ground that petitioner had failed to submit GST returns lor a continuous period of six mor-rths.
Though petitioner submitted reply dated 03 .lO .2021 , the same r,r,as found to be not satisfactory cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner.
Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Ta-x Act, 2017 before the 3.d respondent. However, by the order-in- whereafter 1"t respondent passed the order dated 24.01.2022
/ / /r HC] & NTRJ appeal dated 12.01.2023, 3'd respondent dismissed the appeal upholding the order dated 24.01.2022. 7. Though under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2077 there is a provision for filing further appeal before the appellate Tribunal, it is submitted that no appellate Tribunal has been constituted in the State of Telangana. Therefore, petitioner has been constrained to file the present u,rit petition. B. Issue raised in this writ petition is no longer res integra.
In M/s. Chenna Krishnama Charyulu Karampudi v. Additional Commissioner (Appeals-11 (Writ Petition No.27O77 of 2022, decided on 27.06.2022) followed by subsequent decisions, this Court had taken the view that a further opportunitv should be granted to the taxable person whose GST registration is cancelled suo motu.
That being the position and without expressing 3 any opinion on merit, we set aside the orders dated W.P.No:4027 of 2023 24.01.2022 and 12.01.2023 and remand the matter back to the file of the 1.t respondent to consider the matter aJresh in accordance u,ith lar.r,. Respondent No. 1 shall afford reasonable opportunit\r of hearing to the petitioner before passing the consequential order on remarld. During the hearing on remand, it would be open to the petitioner to submit the returns as per the statute. 1 1 . Writ Petition is accordingiy allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stald ciosed. 4 C. PRAVEEN KU ASSISTAN T REGI R AR AR //// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 rhe su pe. nr""":", ".1 ?"iltH :ffiT;:*'fl ,[X?:;f TJi[:;: "tt , il"J'$,":x??;.T3,it:i;# "ic*L" "0 centra'rax Appears-l Hvderabad co.-i..,on"jt""1"iti rl""i' CiiBhavan I B Stadium Road elth""torgn HYderabad-500004
The Additionat commssr#iiip'p.",r-'1, office oJ the commissioner of customs and central '" ;;;5''J-';yieiauao commissionarate Tth Floor' GST Bhavan, r- e staolum iJ;l Basneerbagh xyderabad-500004' 4 The Deputv/Assrstant comm[t'*t "i C"i'ltf,t t"' n'ng' Reddy GST ' commissionerate, HYderabad tt,
7. o. o 10 The Financial Secretary, Revenue Department (CT), State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Union of lndia, represented by Finance Secretary, North Block, New Delhi. One CC to SRl. RAMCHANDER CHAKRALA Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to SRl. GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF rNDrA IOPUC] Two CD Copies 11 kar BS
HIGH COURT DATED:1710212023 (a 1HE ST4 14' 0 g tiAR ?!i: * l5 .l Ur) 1'' ORDER WP.No.4027 of 2023 ALLOWING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS {-- <=> ' o \
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.