M/S R.N. Enterprises,Lucknow Thru. Proprietor Mr. Rudra Prakash Singh vs. Commissioner Of Commercial Tax,U.P., Lko. And Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s R.N. Enterprises, challenged the cancellation of its GST registration by the competent authority via an order dated 30.11.2019. The petitioner's appeal against this cancellation was rejected by an order dated 17.02.2022. The petitioner contended that the cancellation was based on incorrect periods of non-filing of GST returns and that the cancellation order wrongly stated no reply was filed, despite a reply being submitted. The revenue initially sought time to obtain instructions. Subsequently, the revenue clarified that the notice was issued for non-filing of returns from March 2019 to September 2019, and the petitioner's reply, though submitted on 22.11.2019, was beyond the stipulated 7-day period expiring on 21.11.2019. The revenue offered to consider revocation of cancellation if dues, interest, and penalty were deposited.
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition by providing a conditional relief. It was directed that if the petitioner deposits the entire dues along with interest and penalty within 7 days from the date of the order, the respondents shall consider the revocation of the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration within two weeks of the deposit. The Court did not explicitly rule on the legal merits of the petitioner's arguments regarding the discrepancies in the periods of non-filing or the non-application of mind. Instead, it facilitated a resolution through a payment-based consideration for revocation. The specific provisions of the CGST Act or Rules that were the subject of detailed legal interpretation were not elaborated upon in the final order, as the matter was settled by consent and a procedural direction.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration is vitiated due to a discrepancy in the period for which GST returns were allegedly not filed, as indicated in the impugned orders versus the actual period? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of the show cause notice and cancellation order). 2. Whether the cancellation order reflects a non-application of mind by erroneously stating that no reply was filed to the show cause notice, when a reply was indeed submitted? Petitioner's Arguments: - The appellate order dated 17.02.2022 stated non-filing for six months, listing November 2018 to March 2019 (five months), which is factually incorrect and vitiates the show cause notice, cancellation order, and appellate order. - The cancellation order dated 30.11.2019 wrongly claimed no reply was filed, despite referencing the petitioner's reply dated 22.11.2019, indicating a patent non-application of mind. Revenue's Arguments: - The notice was issued because GST returns were not filed from March 2019 to September 2019, a period exceeding six months. - The reply was submitted on 22.11.2019, which was beyond the 7-day period stipulated in the show cause notice (expiring 21.11.2019), hence no cognizance was taken of the late reply.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 67 of 2022 Petitioner :- M/S R.N. Enterprises,Lucknow Thru. Proprietor Mr. Rudra Prakash Singh Respondent :- Commissioner Of Commercial Tax,U.P., Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ratnesh Chandra,Vaibhav Krishna Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
Heard Shri Vaibhav Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1 to
The case was taken up on 01.04.2022 on which date following order was passed: "Heard. Instant petition has been challenging the order dated 30.11.2019, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition, whereby the competent authority has cancelled the registration of the petitioner under GST. Also under challenge is the order dated 17.02.2022, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that GST return could not be filed by the petitioner for certain months on account of medical condition of his mother. A show cause notice was issued on 13.11.2019, a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the petition, by the competent authority asking as to why the registration of the petitioner be not cancelled for not filing the return for six months. The reply was submitted on 22.11.2019, a copy of which is Annexure-5 to the petition. Through order dated 30.11.2019, the registration has been cancelled by contending that no reply to the show cause notice has been given. Upon an appeal being filed, the same has also been rejected vide order dated 17.02.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that (a) the impugned order dated 17.02.2022 indicates that no GST return has been filed for six months and the months have also been indicated as November, 2018 to March, 2019 which would only be five months and on this ground alone the show cause notice dated 13.11.2019, the order dated 30.11.2019 and the appellate order dated 17.02.2022 are patently vitiated, (b) the impugned order dated 30.11.2019 indicates that no reply to the show cause notice has been given by the petitioner even though the impugned order refers to the reply to show cause notice of the petitioner dated 22.11.2019 and thus it is contended that the impugned order also reflects patent non-application of mind. Learned Standing Counsel prays for some time to seek instructions. As such, on the request of learned Standing Counsel, list this case in the next week as fresh in order to enable him to seek instructions. "
Today Shri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions submits that (a) the notice had been issued to the petitioner as the GST return has not been filed by the petitioner from March 2019 to September 2019 and thus the period of notice was for a period of more than 6 months, (b) in the show cause notice dated 13.11.2019 the petitioner was required to submit his reply within 7 days which expired on 21.11.2019, while the reply was submitted on 22.11.2019 and as such though the reply has been indicated in the order which has been passed by the respondents yet no cognizance has been taken as the reply had been submitted beyond time.
Shri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions also submits that in case the petitioner deposits the entire dues alongwith interest and penalty within specified time then his case can be considered for revocation of the order of cancellation of the GST registration.
To the said proposition, learned counsel for the petitioner is ready.
Accordingly, it is provided that in case the entire dues alongwith the interest and penalty is deposited within 7 days from today then the respondents shall consider the revocation of the cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner within next two weeks of the amount being deposited.
The writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 8.4.2022 J.K. Dinkar DINKAR Date: 2022.04.08 12:27:17 IST Reason: Location: 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.