9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 816 - HC - GSTCancellation of registration of petitioner - appeal not filed in time - HELD THAT - The learned Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana in M/S. CHENNA KRISHNAMA CHARYULU KARAMPUDI VERSUS THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER APPEALS1 AND ANOTHER 2022 (7) TMI 82 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT having considered the fact that GST Tribunal has not been constituted under Section 109 of the CGST Act and thereby, the petitioner could not be left without any remedy, held that it would be just and proper if the entire matter was remitted back to the 2nd respondent therein to reconsider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The petitioner preferred appeal but it was rejected for the reasons. In that view of the matter and as the GST Tribunal has not been constituted as per the provisions of the Act so as to enable the petitioner to pursue his further legal remedies, in the interest of justice, it is considered apposite to allow the writ petition and remit the matter back to the primary authority i.e., 1st respondent to re-consider the case of the petitioner and after affording a personal hearing to him, pass an appropriate order in accordance with law expeditiously but not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Appeal rejection due to delay in filing within the condonable period. 2. Cancellation of GST registration by the 1st respondent. 3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. Lack of GST Tribunal constitution under Section 109 of the CGST Act. 5. Remittal of the matter back to the primary authority for reconsideration. Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to challenge the appeal rejection order passed by the 2nd respondent due to a delay in filing the appeal within the condonable period. The appeal was dismissed for exceeding the limitation period allowed under Section 107 of the GST Act. The petitioner argued for restoration of registration citing reasons for non-filing returns. The counsel relied on a similar case where the writ petition was allowed for reconsideration by the primary authority. 2. The cancellation of GST registration by the 1st respondent was based on the petitioner's failure to file returns for six months before the issuance of the show-cause notice. The petitioner's appeal against this cancellation was rejected due to a delay beyond the condonable period, leading to the writ petition challenging this decision. 3. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution was invoked by the petitioner as the GST Tribunal was not constituted under Section 109 of the CGST Act, leaving the petitioner with no other legal recourse. The petitioner sought the court's intervention to remit the matter back to the primary authority for reconsideration. 4. The lack of constitution of the GST Tribunal under Section 109 of the CGST Act was highlighted as a crucial factor in the decision-making process. The court considered this absence of an appellate forum and deemed it necessary to allow the writ petition and remit the matter back to the primary authority for a fresh review and decision in accordance with the law. 5. The High Court, after perusing the record and a previous decision, decided to remit the matter back to the primary authority for reconsideration within a specified timeframe. Emphasizing the need for justice and lack of the GST Tribunal, the court allowed the writ petition, directing the primary authority to re-examine the petitioner's case promptly. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petition, remitting the matter back to the primary authority for reconsideration, considering the delay in filing the appeal, cancellation of GST registration, lack of a constituted GST Tribunal, and the interests of justice.
|
