M/S.Cvk Technologies Private Limited vs. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals-Ii)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. CVK Technologies Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court challenging an order dated July 20, 2023, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals-II). This order rejected the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled. The primary contention was that while the petitioner had proof of tax payment, it could not be enclosed with the appeal memo due to an oversight. The petitioner argued that they had been in business and paying taxes regularly, but due to oversight and inadvertence, the proof of payment (challan) was not submitted to the authorities. The petitioner sought to have the impugned order set aside and the matter remitted for reconsideration. The petitioner also stated that the GST portal was closed for submitting such documents.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner had made out a good case to establish that the impugned order passed by the appellate authority was erroneous, particularly in relation to confirming the non-payment status of the petitioner. The Court noted that the petitioner had produced copies of challans showing continuity of business and payment of taxes. The sole inaction was the failure to enclose the copy of the challan with the appeal before the Commissioner. Considering the recent decisions of the Division Bench of the High Court and the Delhi High Court, the Court found it appropriate to set aside the impugned order. The matter was remitted back to the Additional Commissioner (Appeals-II) to reconsider the appeal on its own merits after due verification of the copy of the challan that the petitioner was directed to produce before the appellate authority within a period of two weeks. The respondents were expected to take up the appeal at the earliest. No order as to costs.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated July 20, 2023, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals-II) is erroneous, arbitrary, illegal, and passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, concerning the rejection of the petitioner's appeal for non-submission of proof of payment? 2. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration should be revoked? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the appeal was rejected solely on the ground of failing to submit proof of payment, despite having sufficient material to show tax payments. They contended that they have been in business and paying taxes regularly, and the non-submission was due to oversight and inadvertence. The petitioner produced a copy of the payment challan with the writ petition and submitted that the GST portal was closed for such submissions. They relied on the Delhi High Court judgment in *Kritika Agarwal vs. Union of India and Ors.*, which held that GST cancellation must be exercised with circumspection. They also referred to a recent decision of the same High Court in W.P.No.36174 of 2022, where a similar matter was remanded. Respondents' Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.
Sections Cited
Section 112
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made thr fr>llowing: ORDER
'"" f THE HON'BLE SRI JUSI'ICE P.SAM KOSHY ANT) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICB LAXMI NARAYANA ALISIIETTY WRIT PETITION No.22173 of2023 O R D E R:1pcr llon'ble SriJustice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Mr.Karan Talwar, learned counsel . fbr thc petitioner, Mr.Dominic Fenmandis, learned counsel appearing fbr rcspondent Nos. I to 3 and Mr.B.Mukharjee, learned counsel rcprcsenting on behalf of Mr.Gadi Praveen Kumar, leamed Deputy Solicitor General of India, fbr respondent No.
Perused the material on record
The instant writ petition has been filed being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20.07.2023 in Order-in-Appeal No.HYD-GS1- MD-AP2-042-23-24 passed by respondent No.l in Appcal No.52 of 2023 (MD) GST.
Learned counsel for the petitionel at the outset would submit that since the appellate Tribunal has still not been constituted under Section 112 of the Central Good and Services Act and the petitioner herein has no other option but to prefer the instant writ petition.
The short point or the primary challenge to the irnpugned Order in Appeal is that according to the appellant though he had sufficient rnaterial available with him showing proof of the payment of the- tax made by him, however, it could not be enclosed along wilh the memo
ol' app(a ur i lte I'ribrrnal Iras i c jr:ctcc! the app-:al (rr l) ,)r thll sltoit point ol lt,-' :;, li ioner lailrnq t() sLrbntit any prorif ol ), ilnlnt agairist tlte crtntirrLrrlr rl lh,: busitrcss -i. [-curr'':r] t r ., sc'l 1i-,r'tlrc lrcriti.rrr:r subrnits LhrLt inr'arrr []rt rreriii'ner Itas br.cn in t t l nrrity. ol' busirrcss and has bc-cn pali l :rl thc tli..,es regularlv rospon(lcnt auLhorities, but dr_re t,: r.vcr.siqlrt and Itt C inad'ertcrrcc. rl. l-'roor .f ptrv,rcnt part i.e.. crra ar r:.urtr n.t be- prod,-rccil l',i,i c the author.itier; loncerned. lJorrctlr,,.ess. Ieiirncd corrnscl Ii,r llrt l,.'titioneI subnrits that the petiti rncr. l..:; p.oduce<l a during thc intcr ltpum period. 'l-hus. petitioner ci)upse l.,ra).ed Ar set aside/quaslr thc irrrp-rgned order datcd 20.07.202'.\ an,l ri c' rnatrer be remitted b:rck t. .hi: authorities concerned for rr:cons j11,..rin g all the contentions prr bth by the petitioner in his appeal. l,,ear.nerl counsel fbr the petiLiorr,:r lirrt,rer submits that Lhough the petitiont.r ract paid the entire tax irtltrt's rnc late fbes, but the same cannc,t be lprl.acled since the portal itsci l i c lo:;ed 1br. the samc. copy .f rrc t r irc challan alone \i ith the writ periti(). thrrt hc riad suhntittcd rlrrr ir q tl.e inlereqrrunt ncriod, so as to sr[.stantraL.: his c()ntenti().s. lr'; cla'ds l)a\rnerts rhirt he had nratle t0 ;1r.. dtrpannrent
/
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Wherein the Dethi High Court held that "the measure oJ cancellation of GST must be exercised with circumspection and only in cases. wherc it is necessaty" .
It is note worthy to take note of the recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.36174 of 2022 wherein the Division bench of this Court vide order 20.09.2021 under similar lacts and circumstances interfered with the order of the appellate authorily and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration on its own rnerits.
Admittedly, the petitioner in the instant writ petition produced copies of the challans in respect of the payments that he has made showing the continuity of the business as also showing the payment ol taxes to the department. The only inaction of the petitioner is to the extent that in the appeal before the Commissioner he could not enclosed the copy of challan that he has paid to the department
Having heard the contentions putforth on behalf of the petitioner and also on perusing the recent decisions that have been rendered by the Division Bench of this Court as 6le- tlrat of the Delhi High Court t I ' w .p .lcl9424/2023 and CM Nos.36000/2o23 &36007/2023 l I I i
t eli'n crl that tlrc nL I r j)r'cceCi,t(, ltilragr.:t;th. rve ar.e rf. ll-e r.on..i<ler.crl .optrriorr irio ter has becn ul.,lc to rnakc ()Llt .L ir irll goocl case to cstablrslr tj ur tjrc ir.r-r r.r Lign ecl orcicr plissecl by rh-. r rpc llatc- autllorit\ w'ii.fa'ts irr r:i 1s'c-nce to the cxtent of confir,i,r-e t[u rra-vrrrr:nts status of thc pc.irio r r , c.ilj,ing u irh thc sante that he las e;r,: , ,iic(l \\,jtlt the $,r.it petitio r. I rc inrpugned ortlcr datecl 20.07.2()21 passecl by the Additional )r'nnlrssloner. (App.:als_iI)(Hyi)) rccoldingly IS sel prt ti r11f 1,1, ryithin a ls aside,qlraslrr I tnd thc nlatter is t.emitted bacl. to r(,:j x)n.lent No.l to reco,si,.icr ll ,_, uf lreal ., its ori, rrrerits aftcr due .,,:..illr.atitx of the copy ol thi c. .lrtlan that thc pr_titioner shall producc bcr,rpc lils appellate llttrsuing his lrpl:rcrrl. The respo rdelt lrr..l rs expected authoriti n l lt, to take ll ( r,( ls ()n on the altpcal at the earlier;t. allowed. \o or :jr. r iis to CoSIS pcriod o 'lirrrr r'(..1) rveeks
Wirh tlrc. rl.orc observation and direction, the \\,r.it Petition II As a secluc , niscellaneous applications pending if any in this writ petttion. slnll : lrrJ closed. i/// . P. PADIIIANABHA REDDY ASSISIAYT REGISTRAR s=I.,ritiru oFFrcER To, 1 +^[:, txli#1 a 3' :T,:fl "il:: J i83:f; I;i3;Si I,*,,;:lt, : 1, ; 6o7th F,oo r ilfff# | ?i] i I 1,, :'_"",: :,6?l #, ; #l,f,s j, ^d:l n:,. it i: :,e i[ ";J lt, I f I 1
The Commissioner of Central Tax, Medchal GST Commisisonerate, CF36 plus 25V, Redhills, Hyderabad, Tetangana 500004
The Secretary (Revenue), Union of lndia, lrrlinistry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Room No. 46, North Btock New Delhi 1 i 000i
One CC to SRI KARAN TALWAR, Advocate. tOpUCl
One CC to SRI DOIMINIC FERNANDES, Advocate. tbpUCI
One CC to SRI Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Soliciior Gen-eral Of lndia, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. tOpUCl B. Two CD Copies. BSK GJP,, b.
HIGH COURl \ DATED:171A8t2.023 ORDER WP.No.22173 o12023 ALLOWING C F THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CC STS S IATE O t'. )- 't, tq \\\t NB -L" C)l ) .'ir \'.\ <,. j,,. t'-' z\-\ .? Y , (- ,1, <=
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.