M/S Uma Shree Tour And Travels vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the contention regarding the non-service of the impugned order cancelling registration cannot be gone into in a writ petition, as it involves disputed questions of fact. This is particularly true in the face of an unavailed statutory remedy under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017. Section 30 provides a mechanism for an aggrieved person to apply for revocation of cancellation of registration within 30 days and empowers the competent authority to condone the delay if sufficient cause is shown. Therefore, the Court found it appropriate for the petitioner to first avail this statutory remedy. The Court directed the petitioner to file an application for revocation under Section 30(1) within 15 working days, along with an application for condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay. The competent authority is to decide the condonation application on its merits and, if delay is condoned, then decide the revocation application on merits within 45 days of its submission. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Uma Shree Tour and Travels, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated May 16, 2019, passed by the State Tax Officer, GST Bhopal, cancelling its registration under Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the order of cancellation was never served on them and they were not afforded any opportunity to be heard, preventing them from availing the statutory remedy of revocation under Section 30 of the Act. The respondents are the State of Madhya Pradesh, the Deputy Commissioner State Tax Cum Appellate Officer, and the State Tax Officer. The petitioner had previously filed an appeal under Section 107 of the Act against the cancellation order, which was rendered infructuous.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, can entertain a dispute regarding the non-service of an order cancelling GST registration, especially when an alternative statutory remedy under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, is available for revocation of such cancellation? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the order of cancellation of registration was not served upon them, and they were not given any opportunity to be heard, thus preventing them from availing the statutory remedy under Section 30. They relied on the principle that a party cannot be deprived of a remedy due to non-service of an order. Respondents' contention: The respondents, through their counsel, did not explicitly argue on the merits of the non-service claim in the provided text. However, the Court's observation implies that the existence of the Section 30 remedy, which allows for condonation of delay, is a significant factor.