M/S Shivanshi Enterprise vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Shivanshi Enterprise, filed a writ application seeking a mandamus to direct the respondent authorities to comply with an order dated June 4, 2019, passed by the Appellant Authority. This order was intended to restore the GST Registration No. 24APRPK1735Q2Z9 of Shivanshi Enterprise. The petitioner had inadvertently applied for cancellation of the wrong GST registration number, specifically seeking cancellation of "Shree Sai Water Purifiers" (GST No. 24BAXPK4271K1Z5) instead of their own. This mistake was brought to the notice of Respondent No. 2, who then passed an order restoring the correct registration. However, the petitioner's grievance was that despite this restoration order, the GSTN had not given effect to it.
Held
The Court held that the GSTN Council (Respondent No. 4) was directed to immediately look into the matter and ensure that the order dated June 4, 2019, passed by Respondent No. 2, was given effect to. The reasoning was that the petitioner had inadvertently applied for the cancellation of the wrong GST registration, and upon realizing the mistake, had brought it to the notice of Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 had passed an order restoring the correct registration. The grievance was that the GSTN had not implemented this restoration order. The Court's ratio decidendi is that administrative authorities must act promptly and effectively to implement valid orders passed by other competent authorities, especially when such inaction causes prejudice to a taxpayer. The operative direction was for the GSTN Council to complete this exercise within four weeks from the receipt of the writ.
Key Issues
1. Whether the GSTN Council (Respondent No. 4) is obligated to give effect to an order dated June 4, 2019, passed by Respondent No. 2, which restored the GST registration of the petitioner, Shivanshi Enterprise (GST No. 24APRPK1735Q2Z9), after the petitioner had inadvertently applied for cancellation of a different GST registration? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that an order for restoration of their GST registration was passed by the competent authority (Respondent No. 2) on June 4, 2019, following their mistake in applying for cancellation of the wrong registration. They contended that the GSTN Council has failed to implement this order, causing prejudice to their business operations. They sought a writ of mandamus to compel compliance. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state respondents. However, the court's direction implies that the GSTN Council, as the implementing authority, needed to act upon the order.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) C/SCA/3248/2020 JUDGMENT
Leave to implead the GSTN Council as the respondent no.
The causetitle be amended accordingly.
Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Chitran Dave, the learned AGP waives served of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents nos.2 and 3. 3. By this writapplication under Article226 of the Constitution of India, the writapplicant – a Proprietory concern through its Proprietor, has prayed for the following reliefs: “7(A) Be pleased to admit and allow the present petition; (B) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authority to comply with the order dated 04.06.2019 passed by Appellant Authority by restoring the GST Registration No.24APRPK1735Q2Z9 of “Shivanshi Enterprise” which is at Annexure A to the petition; (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 and 3 to restore the GST Registration No.24APRPK1735Q2Z9 of “Shivanshi Enterprise”; (D) Adinterim relief in terms of paragraph No.8C be granted; (E) Such other and further relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem just, fit and expedient in the interest of justice be granted in favour of the petitioner;”
We need not to discuss the facts of this case in details as the controversy is in a very narrow compass and the writapplication can be disposed of by appropriate directions.
It appears from the materials on record that the writapplicant herein preferred an online application for cancellation of the GST No.24APRPK1735Q2Z9 of the Proprietory concern. In fact, the writ C/SCA/3248/2020 JUDGMENT applicant wanted cancellation of the GST No.24BAXPK4271K1Z5 of “Shree Sai Water Purifiers”. The aforesaid mistake committed by the writapplicant was brought to the notice of the respondent no.2 with a request to restore the original registration. The respondent no.2 passed an order dated 04th June, 2019 restoring the registration. The grievance of the writapplicant is that although there is an order passed by the respondent no.2 restoring the registration, which was inadvertently cancelled, yet the same has not be given effect to by the GSTN.
In such circumstances referred to above, we dispose of this writ application with a direction to the newly impleaded respondent no.4 i.e. the GSTN Council to immediately look into the matter, more particularly, the order passed by the respondent no.2 dated 04th June, 2019, AnnexureA to this writapplication and see to it that the order is given effect to. Let this exercise be undertaken at the earliest and be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. Direct service is permitted. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) aruna
Reproduced from the public record of the Gujarat High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.