Bharti Marbles And Granites Vs Superintendent (Rajasthan High Court)
Summary: Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of the order dated 02.02.2024 and restoration of the GST registration of a partnership firm, holding that the petitioners had failed to provide any meaningful explanation for their prolonged non-compliance. The petitioners admitted that the statutory remedies of appeal and an application under Section 30 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 for revocation of cancellation could no longer be availed because both the prescribed and extendable limitation periods had expired. The Revenue pointed out that the petition did not explain why GST returns had not been filed on time and that even the show cause notice preceding cancellation had remained unanswered. Although the petitioners stated that disputes between the partners prevented them from availing the appellate/revocation remedy, they did not disclose the nature of those disputes or establish how any such dispute prevented filing of returns or submission of a reply to the show cause notice.
The petitioners relied upon Man Singh Tanwar vs. Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax Department & Ors. and M/s Molana Construction Company vs. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Ors., where the Rajasthan High Court had condoned delay and directed consideration of the taxpayers’ remedies. The Court distinguished those decisions on facts, observing that there was at least some semblance of reasons explaining the defaults or delay in those cases. Here, apart from a bald assertion concerning disputes between partners, there was no explanation whatsoever. The Court particularly noted the admitted failure both to file returns within time and to respond to the show cause notice. It therefore declined to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petition.
Cases Discussed
- Man Singh Tanwar vs. Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax Department & Ors. (Rajasthan High Court); D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14658/2024; dated 09.09.2024 (unreported).
- M/s Molana Construction Company vs. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Ors. (Rajasthan High Court); D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12076/2024; dated 26.07.2024 (unreported).
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
1. Heard.
2. Petitioners have made following prayers:-
“A.By an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 02.02.2024 (Annex.05) may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to revoke the cancellation of registration certificate of the partnership firm and permit the partnership firm to file returns under the provisions of Act of 2017;
B. Any other writ or direction that may be deemed fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner.
C. Costs of the proceedings may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”
3. According to petitioners, admittedly, remedy of filing an appeal or submitting an application under Section 30 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act,2017 (for short “the Act”) for revocation of cancellation of registration cannot be availed because the time limit prescribed including extendable limit expired long ago.
4. Counsel for respondent Mr. Lucky Rajpurohit submits that petition does not contain even a whisper as to why the GST returns were not filed on time. He further submits that there is a bald statement that remedy of appeal for revocation of cancellation of registration could not be availed, as the partners were having certain disputes between them, but why returns were not filed itself has not been explained. It is also submitted by Mr. Rajpurohit that show cause notice was also issued, to which there is no response.
5. Shri Lokesh Mathur admits that returns were not filed on time and does not dispute the fact that even show cause notice was not responded to. He however relies upon two orders of this Court in Man Singh Tanwar vs. Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax Department & Ors. 1 and M/s Molana Construction Company vs. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Ors. 2 to submit that in those cases Court had condoned the delay and directed authorities to consider application of assessee in those matters. Unfortunately, both orders do not assist the petitioners because in those matters there was some semblance of some reasons for not filing returns or for not making application within time.
6. In the case at hand, except the bald statement that appeal/application for revocation could not be filed due to certain disputes between the partners, there is no explanation whatsoever. Even what were the disputes are not mentioned. Whether there was any such dispute, because of which, returns could not be filed or reply to show cause notice could be given, also is not mentioned. Petitioners have only arrogated to themselves that they have to just file a petition without giving any reasons and Court would simply entertain the same. Such petitioners, in our view, should be shown the door.
7. Petition dismissed.
Notes:
1 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14658/2024, dated 09.09.2024 (unreported)
2 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12076/2024, dated 26.07.2024 (unreported)
