Case Law Details
M.S. Retail Private Limited Vs Union Of India (Karnataka High Court)
It is not in dispute that the show cause notices, the order of cancellation and the order rejecting the application for revocation of cancellation are passed by proper officer. The show cause notice dated 18.03.2020 and the order of cancellation of registration dated 06.06.2020 have already been challenged before this Court in W.P.No.8167/2020 and cannot be challenged in the present writ petition. Pursuant to the order passed in W.P.No.8167/2020, respondent no.4 has issued the notice dated 03.07.2020 to the petitioner. There is no jurisdictional error in the said notice. The petitioner has made his representation on 06.07.2020 and has been given a personal hearing by respondent no.4 and thereafter, he has passed the order dated 10.07.2020. Thus, the said order is a speaking order and it records the reasons for rejecting the application of the petitioner for revocation of cancellation of registration. The intimation to the petitioner dated 21.07.2020 is pursuant to the order dated 10.07.2020 and it has to be construed as an intimation of the decision taken on 10.07.2020 by respondent no.4, though the reason assigned in the said intimation and the manner in which the same is styled may be erroneous. Even otherwise, the order dated 10.07.2020 is a reasoned order and the same cannot be held as without jurisdiction and in violation of any principles of natural justice. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, it ought to have filed an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The petitioner cannot challenge the same by way of a writ petition.
However, it is noticed that the petitioner has filed the writ petition because it initially challenged certain provisions of the CGST Act and the CGST Rules which could not have been done by way of an appeal. However, for the reasons best known to the petitioner, it has given up the said prayer and has confined its arguments to erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by the respondents which this Court finds untenable for the aforementioned reasons. However, the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be bereft of its right of appeal as contemplated under the CGST Act.
Hence The writ petition is hereby dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal as contemplated under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, if it so desires, within thirty days from today.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
