2022 (11) TMI 1066 - HC - GST

Cancellation of registration of petitioner - failure to respond to the show-cause notice and having failed to avail alternative remedy as prescribed under the provisions of Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 - petitioner herein is ready to furnish all the necessary information, but, in view of cancellation order, the petitioner is not in a position to furnish the same to the 1st respondent. HELD THAT - The reality remains that according to Section 107 of the CGST, 2017, any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act by an adjudicating authority may appeal to such appellate authroity as may be prescribed within three months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated to such person. This Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the appellant authority as per Section 107 of CGST Act, 2017, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if such an appeal is filed, the same be considered and appropriate orders be passed by the appellate authority strictly in accordance with rules, within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to cancellation of registration under Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a diet contractor supplying food to Government General Hospitals at subsidized prices, challenged the cancellation order of registration by the Goods and Services Tax Officer. The petitioner contended that the supplies were taxable at 5% under the GST Act and had been reporting and discharging tax liability since December 2018. Due to delays in receiving bills from the government, the petitioner failed to file returns for several months. The petitioner highlighted financial difficulties faced, including non-payment by hospitals despite bill acceptance. The petitioner expressed willingness to comply with tax obligations if given another chance. The government, opposing the petition, argued that the petitioner failed to respond to the show-cause notice and utilize the remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, hence challenging the petition's maintainability.

The Court noted Section 107 of the CGST Act, allowing aggrieved parties to appeal decisions within three months. Considering the petitioner's contentions and submissions, the Court disposed of the Writ Petition, permitting the petitioner to approach the appellate authority within a week. The Court directed the appellate authority to consider any appeal filed within four weeks and pass appropriate orders in accordance with rules. The judgment emphasized the importance of following statutory procedures and availing prescribed remedies, such as the appellate process under Section 107 of the CGST Act, before seeking judicial intervention. The Court's decision aimed to uphold procedural fairness and adherence to legal frameworks in tax matters, ensuring parties exhaust administrative remedies before resorting to judicial review.

In conclusion, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh addressed the challenge to the cancellation of registration under the CGST Act, emphasizing the significance of statutory appeal mechanisms. The judgment underscored the necessity for parties to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial redress, promoting adherence to legal procedures and due process in tax-related disputes. The Court's decision balanced the petitioner's contentions with legal requirements, providing an opportunity for appeal while upholding the statutory framework governing tax matters.