9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 787 - HC - GSTMaintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - adequate opportunity not provided to the Petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - There is un-explained gross delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court in writ jurisdiction. The writ petition has been filed after about 2 years of the passing of the order of cancellation of the GST registration. In view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) LTU, KAKINADA ORS. VERSUS M/S. GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LIMITED 2020 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT , the writ petition should not be entertained after the period of availing the alternative remedy of appeal is long over. The petitioner submits that since the garnishee notice was issued during the prevalence of lock down period and without any adjudication proceeding, petitioner may be allowed liberty to assail it in a separate proceeding as the petitioner may have the benefit of the extended period of limitation in view order passed by the Apex Court in IN RE COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION 2021 (3) TMI 497 - SC ORDER . As such, the writ petition is not entertained, as regards the challenge to the order of cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner dated 25.10.2019 (Annexure-4). The petitioner is allowed liberty to raise his cause of action as respects the garnishee notice dated 20.10.2020 issued under Section 79(1)(c) of the JGST Act, 2017 in an independent proceeding, if permissible in law - petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Challenge to the ex-parte Order for Cancellation of IR Registration 2. Direction to restore the Registration of the Petitioner 3. Acceptance of belated returns in GSTR-3B and installment deposit of tax 4. Challenge to Notice directing remittance to GST Department 5. Direction to stop coercive action for recovery 6. Initiation of adjudication proceeding for alleged liability Analysis: 1. The writ petition challenges the ex-parte Order for Cancellation of IR Registration, contending that the cancellation lacked natural justice and was based on non-filing of GSTR-3B returns due to non-reimbursement of tax. The petitioner seeks restoration of registration to facilitate payment release from clients. The delay in filing the petition was noted, and the court emphasized the importance of exhausting alternative remedies before approaching the court. 2. The petitioner also sought acceptance of belated GSTR-3B returns and installment deposit of tax. However, the respondents argued for the petition's non-maintainability due to failure to exhaust the appeal remedy under Section 107 of the JGST Act, 2017. The respondents highlighted the statutory appeal provision and the limited timeframe for appeal, leading to the denial of relief for the petitioner. 3. The challenge to the Notice directing remittance to the GST Department was based on lack of show cause notice and adjudication, denying the petitioner an opportunity to defend. The respondents contended that the cancellation of registration was justified under Section 29(2)(c) of the JGST Act due to non-filing of returns. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory appeal provisions and timelines. 4. The court considered the submissions of both parties and noted the unexplained delay in approaching the court. Citing relevant judgments, the court emphasized the need to exhaust alternative remedies before seeking relief through writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was allowed to challenge the garnishee notice separately, considering the extended limitation period during the lockdown. 5. Ultimately, the court disposed of the writ petition, declining to entertain the challenge to the cancellation of GST registration due to the delay in filing. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the garnishee notice in a separate proceeding if permissible by law. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to statutory appeal procedures and timelines in tax matters.
|
