Partly allowed

S M S Infrastructure Thr Its Proprietor Satara v. Union of India Thr Goverment Pleader and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Jul 2022WP/8747/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order dismissing her appeal against the cancellation of her GST registration. The court held that Section 107 of the CGST Act does not mandate filing a revocation application under Section 30 to maintain an appeal. The impugned order was quashed, and a personal hearing was directed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dismissing the appeal was quashed and set aside; the respondent was directed to consider the appeal de novo after a personal hearing.

S M S Infrastructure Thr Its Proprietor Satara Vs Union… — GST and Indirect Tax | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

14 wp 8747-22-c

¶3

Priya Soparkar

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.8747 OF 2022

¶6

PRIYA RAJESH SOPARKAR

¶7

Digitally signed by PRIYA RAJESH SOPARKAR Date: 2022.07.27 10:24:24 +0530

¶8

SMS Infrastructure
Through Proprietor Satara… Petitioner
V/s.
Union Bank of India
Through Government Pleader and ors.… Respondents

¶9

Mr.Rushikesh C. Barge, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr.Jitendra B. Mishra alongwith Mr.Dhananjay B. Deshmukh, Advocates for
Respondents.

¶10

Ms.S.D.Vyas, GP, “B” Panel Counsel for the State.

¶11

CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM AND

¶12

 A.S.DOCTOR, JJ.
 DATE : JULY 25, 2022.

¶13

P.C.:-

¶14

1.No reply has been filed. By consent of the parties, petition is taken up
for final disposal.

¶15

2.Petitioner is impugning an order dated 24th February, 2022 passed by
respondent No.2 dismissing petitioner’s appeal filed against order dated 16th
April, 2020 cancelling petitioner’s registration. The order that was impugned
in the appeal before respondent No.2 was passed by respondent No.3.
Respondent No.2 in the impugned order at paragraph No.7.2 holds that the
appeal was maintainable, but still dismisses the appeal on the ground that
petitioner could have filed an application under section 30 of the Central
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”). Section 30 provides for

¶16

Priya Soparkar214 wp 8747-22-c

¶17

revocation of cancellation of registration. It provides that where a registration
is cancelled, petitioner may apply to such officer for revocation of cancellation
of the registration within 30 days from the date of service of the cancellation
order.

¶18

3.In our view, respondent No.2 was not correct in rejecting the appeal on
this ground. Section 107 of the CGST Act does not provide that a registered
person should, while challenging an order of cancellation of registration
should also file an application under section 30 of the CGST Act. While
holding that the appeal is maintainable, still respondent No.2 has rejected the
appeal on the ground that an application under section 30 has not been
made. We are not agreeable with the view expressed by respondent No.2.

¶19

4. Therefore, the impugned order dated 24^th February, 2022 is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the appeal de novo and may pass on merits such order as it deems fit in accordance with law.

¶20

5.Respondent No.2 shall also give a personal hearing before passing any
order and the notice for personal hearing shall be issued atleast 7 days in
advance. If during the personal hearing petitioner wishes to file any
documents, respondent No.2 shall receive the documents and consider the
same and deal with those submissions in his final order. Petitioner, should
they wish, should be permitted to file written submissions recording what
was submitted during the personal hearing and the written submissions shall
be filed within three working days from the date of personal hearing. The
final order shall be a well reasoned order dealing with every submission of

¶21

Priya Soparkar314 wp 8747-22-c

¶22

petitioner.

¶23

6. Petition disposed. No order as to costs.

¶24

7. We clarify that we have not made any observations on the merits of the

¶25

matter.

¶26

 (A.S.DOCTOR, J.) (K.R.SHRIRAM, J.)

S M S Infrastructure Thr Its Proprietor Satara v. Union of India Thr Goverment Pleader and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S M S Infrastructure Thr Its Proprietor Satara v. Union of India Thr Goverment Pleader and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarla Polyester Limited Vs the Union of India and Anr.

Prakash Overseas Thr. Sole Working Partner Sanjay Anup Jain Vs Union of India Thr. the Joint Secretary Dept. of Revenue Ministry of Finance and Ors.

Kastur Pulse Mill Vs Union of India and Ors.

Jasraj Chaganlal Jain Vs Union of India Thr. Secretary Ministryof Law and Justice Dept. and Ors.

S M S Infrastructure Thr Its Proprietor Satara Vs Union of India Thr Goverment Pleader and Ors.

Prithvi Exports Vs Union of India and 4 Ors.