M/S Namo Sales Vs the Superintendent

M/S. NAMO SALES PROPRIETOR SHI. SAINATH BIRADAR S/O LATE MALIK ARJUN BIRADAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, GORANALLI B, BIDAR, GP NO.3/302/1, BIDAR - 585 401. (A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISION OF CGST/SGST ACT, 2017)

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI PRAKASH D & SRI DEVI PRASAD G.K., ADVOCATES)

¶12

Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX, BIDAR RANGE, GULBARGA DIVISION, MIG-24 KHB COLONY, BIDAR - 585 402.

¶15

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS) NO.71, CLUB ROAD, BELGAVI 590 001.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA)

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1451 WP No. 200600 of 2025

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR CERTIORARI OR PROHIBITION OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER FOR CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION ISSUED VIDE REFERENCE NO.ZA291122033473U DATED 09.11.2022 WHICH IS HEREWITH ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-D PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 OR QUASH THE ORDER OF RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR REJECTING THE APPEAL ON LIMITATION VIDE ORDER-IN-APPEAL NO.BGM-JJ-ADC-72-2024-25-GST DATED 08.11.2024/09.11.2024 AT ANNEXURE-F AND TO RESTORE GST REGISTRATION NUMBER: 29DURPB6842MIZU DATED 25.11.2019 AT ANNEUXRE-A ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1.

¶20

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

¶24

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶25

The petitioner is assailing the order dated 09.11.2022 passed by respondent No.1, canceling the registration under Goods and Service Tax Act and also the order dated 09.11.2024 passed by respondent No.2, rejecting the appeal fled by the petitioner challenging the

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1451 WP No. 200600 of 2025

¶27

order dated 09.11.2022. The said appeal was dismissed on the ground that the Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to condone the delay.

¶28

The admitted factual position is that, the petitioner is a proprietary concern and was registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act. The petitioner while registering his name under the said Act has provided the E-mail ID and of his consultant and all the communications were sent to the petitioner’s consultant, who in turn did not communicate the communication sent by the respondent authorities.

¶29

It is stated that on account of non-filing of the returns, the petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled. The petitioner was not aware of intimation of canceling the registration sent to the petitioner’s consultant.

¶30

Later, after realising that the registration is cancelled, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which however, was beyond 120 days from the order canceling registration.

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1451 WP No. 200600 of 2025

¶32

6. The Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal

¶33

on the premise that it has no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond 120 days. Hence, the present petition is filed.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶35

submits that there is no tax liability on the part of the petitioner as can be noticed from the cancellation order dated 09.11.2022.

¶36

Learned Additional Government Advocate does

¶37

not dispute this fact.

¶38

Now the question is, whether the Appellate Authority committed an error in rejecting the appeal?

¶39

It is noticed from the order of the Appellate Authority that, the Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond 120 days from the date of original order. As such, the order of the Appellate Authority is in accordance with law. However, the power of the High Court to pass appropriate orders in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1451 WP No. 200600 of 2025

¶41

not taken away in terms of the statutory limitation found in the provisions of the Goods and Services Tax Act. In exercise of the said power, in Writ Petition No.202924/2024 (T-RES) (D.D.25.11.2024), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and remitted the matter to the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal on merits.

¶42

In the aforementioned case, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has directed restoration of the registration under the Goods and Services Tax Act, subject to petitioner filing the returns. As already noticed, the respondent authorities have already held that there is no tax liability. However, the petitioner is required to file the returns.

¶43

In view of the above, the present petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1451 WP No. 200600 of 2025

¶47

ii) The impugned order dated 09.11.2022 passed by respondent No.1 and the order dated 09.11.2024 passed by respondent No.2 are hereby quashed.

¶48

iii) Respondent No.1 is directed to restore the petitioner’s registration under the GST Act and in case any tax liability is found, the petitioner shall pay the same.

¶49

iv) The petitioner shall file the returns as required under law.

¶50

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶51

LG List No.: 2 Sl No.: 35

M/S Namo Sales v. the Superintendent

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Namo Sales v. the Superintendent

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Spr Spirits Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Narayan P M Vs the Regional Transport Authority

The Management of Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. Vs the General Secretary

Daulatraya S/O Sahebgouda Vs Bapugouda S/O Sahebgouda and Ors.

Ratnamma Vs Ashok

Chinnamma W/O Amruthrao Vs Tarabai D/O Gundappa and Anr.