Case Law Details
Rakeshkumar Vs Assistant Commissioner (CT) (Madras High Court)
Introduction: The case of Rakeshkumar vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT) before the Madras High Court revolves around the cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns. The petitioner challenges the impugned order under Rule 22(3) and 29 of the TNGST Act, 2017, and this article explores the details of the case and the court’s decision.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Background: The petitioner in this case faced the cancellation of their GST registration by the respondent under Rule 22(3) and 29 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The cancellation order followed a Show Cause Notice in GST REG-17 issued on 09.02.2023. The notice alleged that the petitioner had failed to pay taxes, interest, and penalties to both the Central and State Governments for a period exceeding three months. Furthermore, the petitioner had not filed returns for the months of October, November, and December 2022. In response, the petitioner claimed to have filed a return belatedly on 17.02.2023.
2. Petitioner’s Contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice in GST REG-17 lacked clarity regarding where the petitioner should appear for a personal hearing scheduled for 17.02.2023. Consequently, the petitioner sought the court’s intervention under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.
3. Respondent’s Stand: The learned Special Government Pleader representing the respondent contended that the petitioner had ample time to respond and participate in the personal hearing but failed to do so. Moreover, the petitioner did not file an application for revocation of cancellation under Section 30 of the TNGST Act, 2017. Additionally, the petitioner missed the opportunity to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017. Therefore, the writ petition, according to the respondent, should be dismissed.
4. Court’s Decision: The court considered the arguments from both sides and observed that the petitioner appeared to be involved in the business of automobile spare parts. While the petitioner claimed to have filed a return on 17.02.2023, there were no supporting records to validate this assertion.
The court, in its decision, allowed the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017. This permission was granted within a period of 30 days from the date of receiving a copy of the court’s order. Additionally, the petitioner was required to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000 along with the appeal, over and above any amount due, subject to final appropriation/adjustment after the Appellate Commissioner’s decision.
5. Conclusion: In the case of Rakeshkumar vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), the Madras High Court emphasized the importance of compliance with tax-related obligations, including timely return filing. The court’s decision highlights the availability of appellate remedies and the need to follow the prescribed procedures for addressing issues related to GST registration cancellation. It serves as a reminder to taxpayers to fulfill their tax obligations promptly and adhere to the legal process when contesting such matters.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Mrs .E.Ranganayaki, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondent.
2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 27.02.2023 passed under Rule 22 (3) read with 29 of the TNGST Act, 2017. By the impugned order, the respondent has cancelled the registration of the petitioner. The impugned order preceds a Show Cause Notice in GST REG-17 dated 09.02.2023. The notice states that the petitioner has failed to pay tax, interest and penalty to the Central and State Government for the period beyond three months from the date of which, such payment can be admitted. The petitioner has not filed the returns during the month of October, November and December 2022. After the notice was issued on 09.02.2023, the petitioner claims to have filed a return belatedly on 17.02.2023.
3. The case of the petitioner is that notice in GST REG-17 is unclear as to where the petitioner should appear for a personal hearing fixed on 17.02.2023. Hence, prays for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent submits that sufficient time was given to the petitioner to reply. However, the petitioner failed to reply and appear for personal hearing. That apart, the petitioner ought to have filed an application for revocation of cancellation under Section 30 of the TNGST Act, 2017, which also the petitioner failed to do so. That apart, it is submitted that the petitioner has other option to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, which also the petitioner failed to Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. The learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, 2020 SCC Online SC 440.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent.
7. The petitioner appears to be a person engaged in Automobile spare parts. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a return on 17.02.2023. However, there are no records to substantiate the same.
8. Be that as it may, Court is inclined to permit the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. The petitioner shall however pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000/- along with the appeal over and above any amount that is due from the petitioner which shall be subject to final appropriation/adjustment, after order is passed by the Appellate Commissioner.
10. This writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed.
