M/S 360 Watt Media Services Thru. Proprietor Zoya Siddiqui Lko. vs. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 (Appeal), Fifth State Tax, Lko. And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s 360 Watt Media Services, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 20.01.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade 2 (Appeal), Lucknow. This order upheld the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration. The petitioner had been issued a show-cause notice dated 14.09.2022 for cancellation of registration. However, the petitioner failed to file a reply to this notice or appear before the authority on the scheduled date. The impugned order for cancellation was passed on this basis. The judgment notes a discrepancy in the impugned order, which initially stated the petitioner's reply was considered but then clarified that no reply was submitted.
Held
The Court held that the petition was not maintainable in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. The petitioner was issued a show-cause notice for cancellation of GST registration and was provided an opportunity to file a reply and be heard. However, the petitioner failed to avail these opportunities by not filing a reply to the show-cause notice and not appearing before the authority. The Court noted a minor discrepancy in the impugned order regarding whether the petitioner's reply was considered, but ultimately found that the order clearly stated no reply was submitted. Since the petitioner did not utilize the opportunities provided, the Court found no grounds to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition was dismissed. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to apply afresh for registration, and if the documents met the legal requirements, the authority was directed to proceed with the fresh registration.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 20.01.2023, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade 2 (Appeal), Lucknow, upholding the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration, is liable to be quashed, and consequently, whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration should be revoked? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order and revoke the cancellation of their GST registration. The judgment does not explicitly detail the petitioner's arguments beyond seeking relief, but the context implies a challenge to the cancellation order. Respondent's contention: The respondents, represented by the Additional Chief Standing Counsel, did not explicitly argue their case in the provided text. However, the Court's reasoning suggests that the respondents' position, as reflected in the impugned order, was that the petitioner failed to respond to the show-cause notice and avail the opportunity of being heard.
Sections Cited
Article 226
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 17 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 87 of 2023 Petitioner :- M/S 360 Watt Media Services Thru. Proprietor Zoya Siddiqui Lko. Respondent :- Additional Commissioner Grade 2 (Appeal), Fifth State Tax, Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Tanveer,Abhishek Singh,Sumit Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sanjay Shareen, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, for respondents - State Authorities.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 20.01.2023 passed by the respondent no. 1 i.e. Additional Commissioner, Grade 2 (Appeal), Lucknow in Appeal No.130 of 2022 (Annexure-6), and for revocation of cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner.
It appears that the petitioner was issued show-cause-notice dated 14.09.2022 for cancellation of registration; it also appears that the petitioner did not file any reply to the show-cause-notice nor he appeared before the authority on 09.09.2022 and, thus, the impugned order for cancelling registration of the petitioner has been passed.
It reflects that by mistake it got written that the petitioner's reply to the show-cause-notice was considered, but on the same beneath, it was said that no reply to the notice was submitted by him. Even otherwise, the impugned order also specifically mentions that no reply was given to the show-cause-notice.
Once the petitioner was given opportunity to file his reply, and he was also afforded an opportunity of being heard, however, he did not avail the same, nor he filed reply to the show-cause-notice, I find that it is not a case where in exercise of extra-ordinary juri iction this Court can grant any relief to the petitioner.
Thus, the petition is hereby dismissed.
However, the petitioner may apply afresh for registration and, if his documents are found in accordance with requirement of law, the authority may proceed to register the petitioner afresh under the Goods and Services Tax. [D.K. SINGH, J.] Order Date :- 6.4.2023 MVS/- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.