Janga Chakradar Reddy vs. The Union Of INDIA And 8 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Janga Chakradar Reddy, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Telangana GST authorities (Respondents 2-5) to cancel the GSTIN No. 36AGOPA7937J1ZZ registered in the name of the 6th respondent, Navarang Stores, represented by the 7th respondent. The petitioner contended that the property where the business was established had been sold multiple times, with the 6th respondent eventually selling it to respondents 8 and 9, who then sold it to the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the GST registration should be cancelled due to these property transactions. The petitioner had made several representations to the authorities regarding this matter.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition was wholly misconceived. The Proper Officer's report indicated that the GST registration was migrated from the erstwhile APGST/VAT regime and that the initial application was filed under that regime. Consequently, it was not possible to attribute the registration to incorrect documents. The Court also noted that a civil suit concerning money transactions between parties existed, but this could not serve as a valid ground for cancelling the GST registration. Additionally, the 6th respondent had been consistently filing its GST returns. The Court found that the report of the Proper Officer had not been assailed by the petitioner. Therefore, on a thorough consideration of all aspects, the Court concluded that no action was warranted and dismissed the writ petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the action of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in not taking any action on the petitioner's representations seeking to cancel the GSTIN No. 36AGOPA7937J1ZZ registered in the name of the 6th respondent is illegal, arbitrary, and a violation of Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, particularly in light of the property sale deeds? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the GST registration should be cancelled because the property associated with the registration has changed hands multiple times, culminating in its sale to the petitioner. The inaction of the GST authorities on the petitioner's representations was also challenged as illegal and arbitrary. Revenue's arguments: The revenue, through the Proper Officer, submitted a report stating that the 6th respondent had filed a receipt indicating possession of the premises. The GST registration was migrated from the erstwhile APGST/VAT regime, and the initial application was filed under that regime. Therefore, it was not possible to attribute the obtaining of tax registration to incorrect documents. The revenue also noted that a civil suit regarding money transactions existed between parties, which could not be a ground for cancellation. Furthermore, the 6th respondent had been filing required returns under the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, leading to the conclusion that no action was called for.
Sections Cited
Section 2(91)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
/,' ///i THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE JAL BHTIYAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.35978 of 2o22 ORDER: Pet the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Lljjal BhuAan) Heard Mr. Pulla Rao Yellanki, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L. Venkateshwar rao, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5. 2. By filing this writ petition under Articie 226 of th.e respondents No.2 to 5 to cancel the goods and services tax (GST) registration of respondent No.6 represented by respondent No.7. 3. From the material papers we find that in this connection representations were filed by the petitioner before the respondents on 2I.O3.2O22, O2.O5.2O22 and 25.O5 .2022. On the basis of the representations, respondent No.4 directed respondent No.S who is the lroper officer in terms of Section 2(911 of the Telangana 7 Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to ) Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, to conduct an enquiry and thereafter to take appropriate steps under the aforesaid Act.
Proper officer submitted his report on O|'O7'2O22 stating that respondent No.6 had Iiled receipt in token of possession of premises in its name. GST in question is migrated from APGST/VAT and initial application for registration was filed under the erstwhile regime' Therefore, it is not possible to attribute that respondent No.6 had obtained tax registration on the basis of incorrect documents. There appears to be a civil suit regarding money transaction between one Abdul Sattar and Gopal Reddy, being O.S.No.199 of 2021. T}:.e same cannot be a valid ground for cancellation of GST registration. That apart, respondent No.6 has been filing required returns under the provisions of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2077. Therefore, no action is called for.
We hnd that the aforesaid report has not been \ assailed in the present proceeding. Be that as it may, on thorough consideration of all aspects of the matter, we are J of the view that Iiling oi the present writ petition is wholly misconceived. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 1 I //II
One CC to SRt PULLA RAO YELLANK|, Advocate tOpUCl
One CC to SMT. B. KAVITHA YADAV, S.C. for Centrat Government tOpUCl
One CC to SRI L. VENKATESHWAR RAO, Standing Counsel tOpUCl t L*rlr:3;["rocfo[,l,co"urcial raxes' High court for the state of reranasna
Two CD Copies.
One Spare Copy I. NAGALAKSHMI o"'*ff751511 SECTION OFFICER To, MP GJP
Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. / I
HIGH COURT DATED:1 910912022 irrE srAr5 c s L:[ 2U2 ORDER WP.No.35978 ot 2022 DlSMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS {,-, \rtl". \\ r, 'i - I ::Sr' '- - -\.-.--i___ _,: . -i2 I I I t
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.