9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot allow the situation to continue. We find that, in the facts and circumstances of this case it would be appropriate to exercise our jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.' This Court in TVL. SUGUNA CUTPIECE CENTER VERSUS THE APPELLATE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST) (GST) , THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CIRCLE) , SALEM BAZAAR. [ 2022 (2) TMI 933 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ], has held that no useful purpose would be served keeping the petitioners out of the Goods and Service Tax regime, as such assessees would still continue to his businesses and supply goods and services. The petitioner in this case is engaged in the business of executing works for Government and its agencies. Most of the small scale entrepreneurs like carpenters, electricians, fabricators, etc., are almost uneducated and they are not accustomed with handling of e-mails and other advance technologies - The Department shall workout the possibilities of issuing these notices in the respective regional languages and also by SMS and registered post. So that, the uneducated traders can also respond to these notices to some extent, otherwise, these notices will be an empty formality and will not serve any purp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbit of GST Act. He further submitted that the petitioner failed to file the appeal within the prescribed limitation period under Section 107(4) of the GST Act. Therefore there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 5. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials placed on record. 6. The petitioner is engaged in the business of executing contract works for Government and its Agencies and enrolled under SGST Act 2017. The petitioner has been provided with GSTN Registration No. 33CHOPK2901H1ZI. The impugned order has been passed cancelling his registration under the GST Act due to non-filing of the returns. The petitioner claims that though he had handed over the documents to his accountant, due to his ill-health, he could not file the returns in time. The portal is not opening and therefore, he could not file the appeal. The respondent claims that the Statue prescribes specific limitation period of 90 days to file an appeal and hence the portal will automatically get closed after the limitation period is over. 7. A similar issue has been dealt with by a Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Rohit Enterprises v. Commissioner, State GST Bhavan, Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the State which would rather be adversely affected by cancellation. 12. In this regard, a reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs Union of India reported in (1997) 5 SCC 536. The supreme court observed that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India or Supreme Court under Article 32 cannot be restricted by the provision of any Act to bar or curtail remedies. True that while exercising the constitutional power, the Court would certainly take note of legislative intent manifested in the provisions of the Act and would exercise jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of enactment. The constitutional Courts in exercise of such powers cannot ignore law nor can it override it. 13. Applying the aforesaid guidelines to the facts of the present case, we find that the petitioner, who is sufferer of unique circumstances resulting from pandemic and his health barriers, would be put to great hardship for want of GST registration. The petitioner who is small scale entrepreneur cannot carry on production activities in absence of GST registration. Resultantly, his right to livelihood would be affe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... player or, even for the Government agency, are drawn on-line. In most cases, the payments are made direct to the bank on 6 production of the bill with the GST registration number. In the absence of GST registration number, a professional cannot raise a bill. So, if the petitioner is denied a GST registration number, it affects his chances of getting employment or executing works. Such denial of registration of GST number, therefore, affects his right to livelihood. If he is denied his right to livelihood because of the fact that his GST Registration number has been cancelled, and that he has no remedy to appeal, then it shall be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution as right to livelihood springs from the right to life as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In this case, if we allow the situation so prevailing to continue, then it will amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, and right to life of a citizen of this country. 9. This Court in Suguna Cutpiece v. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST)(GST) and Others, reported in 2022 (2) TMI 933, has held that no useful purpose would be served keeping the petitioners out of the Goods and Service Tax r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds of law and not to transgress them. 223. In Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 536, in Paragraph No.77, the Hon ble Supreme Court observed that So far as the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or for that matter, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 is concerned, it is obvious that the provisions of the Act cannot bar and curtail these remedies. It is, however, equally obvious that while exercising the power under Article 226/Article 32, the Court would certainly take note of the legislative intent manifested in the provisions of the Act and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the enactment. Even while acting in exercise of the said constitutional power, the High Court cannot ignore the law nor can it override it. 224. Notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners have shown utter disregard to the provisions of the Acts and have failed to take advantage of the amnesty scheme given to revive their registration, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned orders with grant consequential reliefs subject to terms. 225. The provisions of the GST enactments cannot be interpreted so as to deny the right to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if it has not been already paid. ii. It is made clear that such payment of Tax, Interest, fine / fee and etc. shall not be allowed to be made or adjusted from and out of any Input Tax Credit which may be lying unutilized or unclaimed in the hands of these petitioners. iii. If any Input Tax Credit has remained utilized, it shall not be utilised until it is scrutinized and approved by an appropriate or a competent officer of the Department. iv. Only such approved Input Tax Credit shall be allowed for being utilized thereafter for discharging future tax liability under the Act and Rule. v. The petitioners shall also pay GST and file the returns for the period subsequent to the cancellation of the registration by declaring the correct value of supplies and payment of GST shall also be in cash. vi. If any Input Tax Credit was earned, it shall be allowed to be utilised only after scrutinising and approving by the respondents or any other competent authority. vii. The respondents may also impose such restrictions / limitation on petitioners as may be warranted to ensure that there is no undue passing of Input Tax Credit pending such e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
