Case Law Details
Yaghneshwar Logistics Vs Additional Commissioner (Telangana High Court)
Heard Mr. Srinivas Chitturu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Narsimha Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 05.10.2021 passed by respondent No.2 cancelling the Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration of the petitioner as well as the order dated 18.08.2022 passed by respondent No.1 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.
3. Petitioner before us is a proprietary firm and is engaged in the business of courier agency services. It is registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(briefly, ‘CGST Act’, hereinafter) as well as Telangana State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (briefly, ‘TGST Act’, hereinafter). On 02.09.2021, Respondent No. 2 issued a show cause notice as to why the GST registration of the petitioner should not be cancelled on the ground of failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months. Petitioner submitted reply on 03.10.2021 explaining the circumstances because of which the returns could not be filed for a continuous period of six months. However, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 05.10.2021 cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner stating that the petitioner neither responded to nor filed returns up-to-date. Thereafter, petitioner preferred appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act before respondent No.1. However, respondent No.1 dismissed the appeal vide order dated 18.08.2022 on the ground of belated filing of the appeal.
4. The issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by a recent decision of this Court in M/s. Chenna Krishnama Charyulu Karampudi v. Additional Commissioner (Appeals-1) 2022(7) TMI 82. In the aforesaid decision, this Court held as follows:
Though the lower appellate authority may be right in holding that while it may allow filing of an appeal beyond the limitation of three months for a further period of one month, therefore, by extension of limitation beyond the extended period of one month delay beyond the extended period of one month cannot be condoned, we are of the view that such a stand taken by respondent No.1 may adversely affect the petitioner. This is more so because respondent No. 2 had suo motu cancelled the GST registration of the petitioner on the ground of non-filing of returns and as GST Tribunal has not been constituted under Section 109 of the CGST Act, petitioner would be left without any remedy.
We further find that the issue pertains to cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper if the entire matter is remanded back to respondent No.2 to reconsider the case of the petitioner and thereafter to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
In the light of the above and without expressing any opinion on merit, we remand the matter back to the file of respondent No.2 to consider the grievance expressed by the petitioner against cancellation of GST registration and thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Needless to say, when the respondent No.2 hears the matter on remand, petitioner shall submit all the returns as per the statue.
5. Accordingly and in the light of the above, we set aside the orders dated 05.10.2021 of respondent No.2 as well as the order dated 18.08.2022 of respondent No.1. Matter is remanded back to the file of respondent No.2 to consider the grievance expressed by the petitioner against cancellation of GST registration and thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
6. Needless to say, during consideration of the matter by respondent No.2 on remand, petitioner shall submit the returns as per the statute.
Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand dismissed.
