M/S. P. Kondala Rao Contractor vs. The Joint Commissioner (Appeals-1)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. P. Kondala Rao, a contractor, had its Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration cancelled by the Superintendent of Central Tax (2nd respondent) on August 16, 2021, effective August 1, 2021. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to regularly submit monthly GST returns. The petitioner's reply to a show cause notice dated November 9, 2018, was deemed unsatisfactory. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals-1) (1st respondent). However, the appellate authority rejected the appeal on December 27, 2022, finding that the application for revocation of cancellation was filed beyond the period of limitation. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging both the cancellation order and the appellate order.
Held
The High Court held that the issue raised in the writ petition was no longer res integra, referring to its own previous decisions. Specifically, in M/s. Chenna Krishnama Charyulu Karampudi v. Additional Commissioner (Appeals-1), the Court had taken the view that a further opportunity should be granted to a taxable person whose GST registration is cancelled, suo motu. Applying this precedent, the Court set aside the order of cancellation dated August 16, 2021, and the appellate order dated December 27, 2022. The matter was remanded back to the file of the Superintendent of Central Tax (2nd respondent) for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. The 2nd respondent was directed to afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing a consequential order. During the remand proceedings, the petitioner would be at liberty to submit the pending returns as per the statute. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.
Key Issues
1. Whether the action of the respondents in cancelling the GST registration certificate of the petitioner suo motu, and subsequently confirming the cancellation in appeal, is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to law? This issue turns on the procedural fairness and adherence to statutory provisions in the cancellation and appellate proceedings. The petitioner argued that the action was arbitrary and illegal. The respondents' arguments are not explicitly recorded in the judgment. 2. Whether the petitioner should be granted a further opportunity to have its GST registration considered for revival, especially when the appellate authority rejected the appeal on grounds of limitation? This issue relates to the interpretation and application of provisions concerning the revival of cancelled GST registrations. The petitioner contended for a further opportunity. The respondents' stance on this is not detailed.
Sections Cited
Section 151 CPC, Article 226 of the Constitution of India
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 BHUYAN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.1738 of 2023 ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuuan) Heard Mr. P.Girish Kumar, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Venkatram Reddy Mantur, iearned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. K.Mamata Choudary, learned counsel representing Mr. B.Narasimha Sarma, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents.
By Iiling this petition under Article 226 of ttre Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed legality and validity of the order dated l6.Oa.2o2l passed by the lna respondent cancelling the Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration of the petitioner as well as the order-in-appeal dated 27.12.2022 passed by the 1"t respondent rejecting the appeal filed by 'the petitioner against the order dated 16.o8.202r. t I AND HCJ & NTRJ W. t'.,\o. , 738 of 2O23
I 'etitioner before us is a propr er-arl/ concern carrying on th€' business of executing civil contract works. Following ir trocluction of GST, petitioner got :tself registered with the GS T authorities and obtained registriLtion certificate bearing No.:i6ABZPP47 llF3ZB. On the ground that petitioner did not subr nit its monthly GST returns regula1l,', s.eow cause notice datec 09 11.2018 was issued by the 2". respondent to the petitior er, to which petitioner submitte cl reply dated 20.ll.2O7B. However, reply filed by the petitir,r.r er '*ras found to be not s rtisfactory whereafter 2.,1 respond,trrt passed the order dated 16.08.2021 cancelling GST regis;:-ration of the petitioner w th effect from O 1.08.2021
I etitioner filed appeal before the I st respondent against the aforesaid order dated 16.08.2021. However, the appellate authority took the view that application fited by the petitioner fr r revocation of cancellation of re 6gistration was beyond the period of limitation. Consequently, [,,t rr:spondent upheld the order dated 16.08.2021 passerl by the 2"d 2 l \ I I
.v J HC] & NTRJ W.P.No.1738 of 2O23 1 I respondent and rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner ulde the order-in-appeal dated 22.12.2022. 5. Issue raised in this writ petition is no more res integra.
In M/s. Chenna Krishnama Charyulu Karampudi v. Additional Commissioner (Appeals_ l) (Writ Petition No.27O7I of 2022, decided on 27.06.2022) followed by subsequent decisions, this Court had taken the view that a lurther opportunity should be gralted to the taxable person whose GST registration is calcelled, suo motu.
That being the position and without expressing any opinion on merit, we set aside the orders dated 16.08.2021 and 27.12.2022 and remand the matter back to the file of the 2"d respondent to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law. Respondent No.2 shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the consequential order on remand. During the hearing on I l
.l ){CJ & NTR,] W.P.ltto.1738 of 2023 remand , it rould be open to the petitioner to submit the returns a.s p lr the statute 7 . \ /rit Petition is accordingly allow,:cl. However, there shall L e no order as to costs.
I [iscellaneous applications pending. i. aly, in this Writ Petil.ion shall stand closed. .P,PI.t) IiIAhIABHA REDDY I i/i/ ASSIS;TANT REGISTRAR ' Il-r I]ECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Joint ( GST and C Hyderabad
The Superi Telangana
One CC to 4. One CC to 5. Two CD C( BN ommissioner (Appeals-1 ). O/o. the Commrssiorrer(.Appeals-1 ), entral Tax 7th Floor, GST Bhavan, L.B. Stad urn Basheerbagh, . TS-500004 rtendent of Central Tax, Malakpet, Charmina r l'lyderabad, SRI VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR, AdvocaLle [CPUC] SRI B. NARASIMHA SARMA, Advocate IOP - (:)] pies BS B\R l l a HIGH COUIRT DATED:2310112023 ORDER WP.No.1738 of 2023 ALLOWIN(i THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT I]OSTS )6 ? 5 ttB ?fl21 ir1.I I' 'Ig gra;-s oisp' 1 *,, .?' t. .? ,:) i:, r.) \l \t t lrr 5\o, 6(c I
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.