M/S. Helios Fitness Services PVT. LTD vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioners challenged orders dated 03.11.2021 and 05.11.2021, passed by the Superintendent of Central Tax, cancelling their GST registrations. They also challenged the subsequent appellate authority orders dated 19.08.2022, which rejected their appeals against the cancellation. The writ petitions were filed before the High Court. The Court noted that the issue was squarely covered by a decision rendered on the same day in another writ petition, W.P.No.34926 of 2022. The petitioners are represented by Mr. J.Kanakaiah and Mr. Anil Kumar, and the respondents by Mr. B.Mukherjee and Mr. B.Narsimha Sarma.

Held

The Court held that the issue in these writ petitions was squarely covered by its decision in W.P.No.34926 of 2022, which was pronounced on the same day. Consequently, following the precedent set in that case, the Court set aside the impugned orders of cancellation of registration dated 03.11.2021 and 05.11.2021, passed by the Superintendent of Central Tax, as well as the appellate authority orders dated 19.08.2022. The matters were remanded back to the Superintendent of Central Tax for passing fresh orders in accordance with law. This fresh consideration must include giving the petitioners due opportunity of hearing. The Court directed that this exercise be completed within two months of receiving a copy of the order. In the interim, the petitioners were directed to submit their returns and make due payments. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is covered by a binding precedent, the Court should follow it to ensure consistency and fairness in judicial pronouncements. The Court expressly left undecided any specific grounds for cancellation or appeal, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of following precedent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the orders of cancellation of GST registration and the subsequent appellate orders are liable to be set aside in light of a binding precedent of this Court? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that their case was identical to the one decided in W.P.No.34926 of 2022, and therefore, the same relief should be granted. They relied on the principle that similar matters should be decided consistently. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or the respondents. However, by remanding the matter, it implies that the revenue's initial action of cancellation was found to be procedurally flawed or not in accordance with law, necessitating a fresh consideration.