9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 362 - HC - GSTCancellation of GST registration of petitioner - petitioner had not filed GST return for a continuous period of six months - HELD THAT - Issue raised in this writ petition is no longer res integra. In M/S. CHENNA KRISHNAMA CHARYULU KARAMPUDI VERSUS THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER APPEALS1 AND ANOTHER 2022 (7) TMI 82 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT , which has been followed in subsequent decisions, this Court had remanded the matter back to the file of the primary authority to reconsider and pass appropriate order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Following the above, the order of respondent No.5 dated 12.11.2018 and order of respondent No.3 dated 30.01.2023 are set aside and matter remanded back to the file of respondent No.5 to consider the matter afresh and after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
Issues:
1. Legality and validity of the order cancelling Goods and Service Tax (GST) registration. 2. Appeal rejection by the appellate authority. 3. Lack of remedy due to non-constitution of GST Tribunal. 4. Remand of the matter for reconsideration. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a proprietary firm engaged in selling home appliances, challenged the cancellation of its GST registration by respondent No.5 for not filing returns for six months. The petitioner's appeal before respondent No.3 was rejected, leading to the current writ petition. The court referred to a previous case setting a precedent for remanding such matters for reconsideration by the primary authority after providing a hearing opportunity. 2. The court noted that the appeal filed by the petitioner was found devoid of merit, leading to its rejection. However, the court highlighted the importance of providing a fair opportunity for the petitioner to be heard, especially in cases where the GST Tribunal has not been constituted, leaving the petitioner without a remedy. The court emphasized the need for a just and proper reconsideration by respondent No.2. 3. The court discussed the limitations for filing an appeal under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, emphasizing the significance of adhering to the prescribed timelines. However, the court expressed concern that the absence of the GST Tribunal could adversely affect the petitioner's rights. Consequently, the court decided to remand the matter back to respondent No.2 for a thorough reconsideration and a fresh decision in accordance with the law. 4. In the final disposition, the court set aside the orders of respondent No.5 and respondent No.3, remanding the matter for a fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to submit all required returns as per the statute during the reconsideration process. The writ petition was disposed of without any costs, and any related pending petitions were closed as a result of the judgment.
|
