Case Law Details
Badiger Raghavendra Vs Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court)
Petitioner, a ‘registered supplier’ under section 22 r/w section 26 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is grieving before the Writ Court as to non-consideration of his Revocation Applications dated 25.03.2021 & 26.04.2021 respectively at Annexures-F & G wherein he has sought for rescinding of “Order for cancellation of registration dated 23.07.2019”.
2. The learned Panel Counsel on Court’s request appearing for the respondents although initially resisted the writ petition inter alia contending that the fact matrix as pleaded does not warrant indulgence in the matter, now submits that if a reasonable time is granted, there would be no impediment for considering the subject applications provided that petitioner too co-operates by furnishing information/records as are necessary for due consideration of its claim. This is fair enough.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; a Writ of Mandamus issues directing the jurisdictional respondents to consider and cause to be considered subject Revocation Applications of the petitioner in terms of Sec. 30 of the Act and also keeping in view the decision of the Apex Court in Misc. Application No. 665/2021 arising out of SMW(C) No.3/2020 disposed off on 27.04.2021, within a period of six weeks. All contentions are kept open.
The jurisdictional respondents shall pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per day for the delay brooked in taking the call on the subject applications, apart from they running the risk of being hauled up for contempt.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
