Suresh Kumar Chaudhary vs. The Assistant Commissioner Beliaghata Charge And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The appellant, Suresh Kumar Chaudhary, challenged an order that dismissed his appeal against the refusal to revoke the revocation of his GST licence. The Appellate Authority found that at the time of obtaining registration, the appellant had submitted a forged electricity payment receipt and a forged rental agreement. The Appellate Authority upheld the order refusing revocation of the licence. The appellant then filed a writ petition challenging this order, which was dismissed. Subsequently, the appellant filed the present appeal against the dismissal of the writ petition.
Held
The Court held that the Appellate Authority was well-justified in dismissing the appellant's appeal. The reasoning was based on the categorical finding that the appellant had uploaded a forged electricity payment receipt and a forged rental agreement at the time of obtaining his GST registration. The Court emphasized the principle that fraud vitiates every solemn act. Therefore, there were no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Authority. The appeal and the writ petition were dismissed. However, the dismissal was without prejudice to the appellant's right to apply for fresh registration with genuine documents.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Appellate Authority was justified in dismissing the appellant's appeal against the order refusing to revoke the revocation of his GST licence, considering the finding of forged documents submitted for registration. Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant: The appellant argued that the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing his appeal. (Specific arguments not detailed in the judgment). Revenue/State: The respondent contended that the Appellate Authority was correct in its decision as there was a categorical finding of forged documents (electricity payment receipt and rental agreement) submitted at the time of obtaining registration, and fraud vitiates all solemn acts.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
05 09.01.2024 Directorate of Commercial Taxes & State GST & Ors. Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee ... for the appellant. Mr. Anirban Ray, learned Government Pleader. Md. T. M. Siddiqui Mr. T. Chakraborty Mr. S. Sanyal ... for the respondent. CAN 2 of 2024 Upon perusal of the averments made in the application for condonation of delay, we satisfied that sufficient grounds have been made to file this appeal. Accordingly, CAN 2 of 2024 is allowed. The writ petition was filed challenging the order dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant challenging the order refusing to revoke of revocation of licence granted to the appellant under the GST Act. On going through the order passed by the Appellate Authority, we find that there is a categorical finding that at the time when the registration was 2 obtained, the appellant had uploaded the electricity payment receipt, which was found to be a forged document and as also the rental agreement. Those fraud vitiate every solemn act. Therefore, the Appellate Authority was well-justified in dismissed the appeal petition and we find no grounds to interfere with the same order. For the above reasons, the appeal as well as the writ petition are dismissed. However, dismissal of appeal and the writ petition will not prejudice the appellant from applying that for fresh registration with all genuine documents. (T.S. Sivagnanam) Chief Justice (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.