M/S. Padiyar Krishi Sewa Kendra Thru Proprietor Kailash Padiyar vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that both the order dated 09.06.2022, cancelling the GST registration, and the order dated 29.05.2024, dismissing the appeal on limitation, were passed without proper application of mind. The cancellation order did not clearly indicate whether the petitioner's reply was considered, and it also stated zero amount payable, which meant there was no occasion for the petitioner to deposit any amount that could affect the appeal timeline. The appellate authority's dismissal on limitation without considering the merits was also found to be erroneous. Consequently, the High Court set aside both impugned orders and allowed the petition. The Court granted liberty to the respondents to issue a fresh Show Cause Notice if advised, and if the petitioner remained aggrieved by any future order, they could challenge it before the appropriate forum.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Padiyar Krishi Sewa Kendra, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 09.06.2022 by the Superintendent, Customs & Central Excise, Jhabua, which cancelled its GST registration, and the subsequent order dated 29.05.2024 by the Joint Commissioner, Indore, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal on grounds of limitation. The petitioner had received a Show Cause Notice dated 21.11.2019 for non-filing of GSTR 3B returns for a continuous period of six months. Despite submitting a reply, the registration was cancelled. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the Joint Commissioner solely on the basis of limitation, without considering the merits of the case. The order dated 09.06.2022 itself indicated zero amount payable by the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 09.06.2022, cancelling the GST registration, was passed without proper application of mind, considering the petitioner's reply and the absence of any determined amount payable. 2. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner was rightly dismissed on the ground of limitation by the Joint Commissioner, Appeals, without considering the merits of the case. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the cancellation order was passed without considering their reply and that the appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeal on limitation without addressing the merits. They highlighted that the cancellation order itself stated zero amount payable, negating any immediate financial obligation that might have impacted the appeal timeline. Revenue's arguments: The respondent's counsel submitted that a similar issue is pending before the Apex Court. No specific arguments were recorded regarding the merits of the petitioner's case or the propriety of the appellate authority's decision on limitation.