Case Law Details
Abdul Samad Mohamed Inayathullah Vs Superintendent of CGST and C. Exicse (Madras High Court)
Introduction: The Madras High Court’s recent judgment in the case of Abdul Samad Mohamed Inayathullah vs Superintendent of CGST and C. Exicse delves into the complex issue of GST registration cancellation, particularly in the context of the challenges faced by small-scale entrepreneurs. This analysis aims to explore the key aspects of the judgment, including legal precedents cited and the broader implications for the GST regime.
Background of the Case: Abdul Samad Mohamed Inayathullah, a vegetable exporter, had his GST registration canceled due to non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner contended that his part-time accountant, responsible for filing returns, had contracted COVID-19, preventing timely compliance. Despite filing an application for revocation, the petitioner faced hurdles in the appeal process due to statutory limitations on the GST portal.
Legal Analysis:
1. Constitutional Right to Livelihood: The Madras High Court, echoing sentiments from other judgments, emphasized the constitutional right to livelihood, particularly in the context of small-scale entrepreneurs. The court recognized the severe impact that cancellation of GST registration could have on a trader’s ability to conduct business, pay salaries, and meet financial obligations. This aligns with the principle that the right to carry on trade and business is intrinsic to the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
