Allowed

M/s.Cvk Technologies Private Limited v. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals-Ii)

Telangana HC17 Aug 2023WP/22173/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner challenged the rejection of an appeal against GST registration cancellation on the ground that the Appellate Tribunal was not constituted and challans weren't enclosed. The High Court held that the impugned order was erroneous and passed in violation of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 20.07.2023 was quashed and the matter was remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration after due scrutiny of challan copies.

M/s.Cvk Technologies Private Limited Vs The… — GST and Indirect Tax | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

I^3386l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:22173 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s.CVK Technologies Private Limited, Represented by^its Authorised Signatory,^Mr. ChinaVenkateswarlu Having Office at Plot No 12, IDA Moulall, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad Telangana - 50000.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Additional Commissioner^{(Appeals-ll),} GST and Central Tax, 7th Floor, GST Bhavan, LB Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad^- 500004.

¶13

The Superintendent of Central Tax, Moulali Range, N/alkajgiri^- ll, Plot No.16and21, Aditya Towers, Sri Sai Enclave, Near Checkpost, Bowenpally, Hyderabad - 500011

¶14

The Commissioner of Central Tax, Medchal GST Commisisonerate, CF36 plus 25V, Redhills, Hyderabad, Telangana 500004

¶15

Union of Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Rep by its Secretary (Revenue) Room No. 46, North Block New Delhi^11000'1

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 oI lhe Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court^{may be} pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ⁽ⁱ⁾ to declare the impugned^appeal rejection order bearing Order in Appeal No. HYD-GST-IMD-^AP2- 042-23-24^dated 2O.O7.2023 passed by the Respondent No.1 in Appeal No 5212O23(MD) GST as erroneous, arbitrary, illegal,^passed in violation of^{principles of naturaljustice. (ii)} to direct Respondents to revoke cancellation of Petitioner's^{GST registration} bearing no. 3644DCC0809R2ZD.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 202-a

¶19

Petition un J r sectior-r 151 cpc praying that in the: r:r r).rms,tances stated i, the affidavit filed n r,,ot,on of the petition, the High c.urt ma', rre preased to stay the cancellatron or^{:'€rtitif,ner's} GST reqistration bearin(l No:(i,\At)cc0BOgR2zD.

¶20

Counsel for the Pe itioner : SRI KARAN TALWAR

¶21

Counsel for the Ile ipondents No.1to3: SRI DOMINIC FERNANDT:S

¶22

Counsel for the Re rpcndents No.4 : SRt GADI PRAVE:EN KJil/lAIt, Dy.SOL|C|TOR (;ENEIU\L C)F tNDtA

¶23

The Court made thr fr>llowing: ORDER

¶24

'"" f

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSI'ICE P.SAM KOSHY

¶26

ANT)

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICB LAXMI NARAYANA ALISIIETTY WRIT PETITION No.22173 of2023

¶28

O R D E R:1pcr llon'ble SriJustice P.SAM KOSHY)

¶29

Heard Mr.Karan Talwar, learned counsel . fbr thc petitioner,

¶30

Mr.Dominic Fenmandis, learned counsel appearing fbr rcspondent Nos. I to 3 and Mr.B.Mukharjee, learned counsel rcprcsenting on behalf of Mr.Gadi Praveen Kumar, leamed Deputy Solicitor General of India, fbr respondent No.4. Perused the material on record

¶31

The instant writ petition has been filed being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20.07.2023 in Order-in-Appeal No.HYD-GS1MD-AP2-042-23-24 passed by respondent No.l in Appcal No.52 of 2023 (MD) GST.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitionel at the outset would submit that since the appellate Tribunal has still not been constituted under Section 112 of the Central Good and Services Act and the petitioner herein has no other option but to prefer the instant writ petition.

¶33

The short point or the primary challenge to the irnpugned Order in Appeal is that according to the appellant though he had sufficient rnaterial available with him showing proof of the payment of the- tax made by him, however, it could not be enclosed along wilh the memo

¶34

ol' app(a ur i lte I'ribrrnal Iras i c jr:ctcc! the app-:al (rr l) ,)r thll sltoit point ol lt,-' :;, li ioner lailrnq t() sLrbntit any prorif ol ), ilnlnt agairist tlte crtntirrLrrlr rl lh,: busitrcss

¶35

-i.^[-curr'':r]t r ., sc'l 1i-,r'tlrc lrcriti.rrr:r subrnits LhrLt inr'arrr []rt rreriii'ner Itas br.cn in t t l nrrity. ol' busirrcss and has bc-cn pali l :rl thc tli..,es regularlv Itt C rospon(lcnt auLhorities, but dr_re t,: r.vcr.siqlrt and inad'ertcrrcc. rl. l-'roor .f ptrv,rcnt part i.e.. crra ar r:.urtr n.t beprod,-rccil l',i,i c the author.itier; loncerned. lJorrctlr,,.ess. Ieiirncd corrnscl Ii,r llrt l,.'titioneI subnrits that the petiti rncr. l..:; p.oduce<l a copy .f rrc t r irc challan alone \i ith the writ periti(). thrrt hc riad suhntittcd rlrrr ir q tl.e inlereqrrunt ncriod, so as to sr[.stantraL.: his c()ntenti().s. lr'; cla'ds l)a\rnerts rhirt he had nratle t0 ;1r.. dtrpannrent during thc intcr ltpum period.^'l-hus. petitioner ci)upse l.,ra).ed Ar set aside/quaslr thc irrrp-rgned order datcd 20.07.202'.\ an,l ri c' rnatrer be remitted b:rck t. .hi: authorities concerned for rr:cons j11,..rin g all the contentions prr bth by the petitioner in his appeal. l,,ear.nerl counsel fbr the petiLiorr,:r lirrt,rer submits that Lhough the petitiont.r ract paid the entire tax irtltrt's rnc late fbes, but the same cannc,t be lprl.acled since the portal itsci l i c lo:;ed 1br. the samc.

¶36

t I

¶37

¶38

Learned counsel for the^petitioner relied on^{the judgment} of^the Dethi High Court in Kritika Agarwal vs. Union of tndia and ors.r Wherein the Dethi High Court held that^"the measure oJ cancellation of GST must be exercised with circumspection and only in cases. wherc it is necessaty" .

¶39

It is note worthy to take note of the recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.36174 of 2022 wherein the Division bench of this Court vide order 20.09.2021 under similar lacts and circumstances interfered with the order of the appellate authorily and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration on its own rnerits.

¶40

Admittedly, the petitioner in the instant writ petition produced copies of the challans in respect of the payments that he has made showing the continuity of the business as also showing the payment ol taxes to the department. The only inaction of the petitioner is to the extent that in the appeal before the Commissioner he could not enclosed the copy of challan that he has paid to the department

¶41

Having heard the contentions putforth on behalf of the petitioner and also on perusing the recent decisions that have been rendered by the Division Bench of this Court as 6le-^tlrat of^the Delhi High Court

¶42

'^{w .p .lcl9424/2023andCM Nos.36000/2o23&36007/2023}

¶43

t eli'n crl I r j)r'cceCi,t(, ltilragr.:t;th. rve ar.e rf. ll-e r.on..i<ler.crl .optrriorr that tlrc nL irio ter has becn ul.,lc to rnakc ()Llt .L ir irll goocl case to cstablrslr tj ur tjrc ir.r-r r.r Lign ecl orcicr plissecl by rh-. r rpc llatc- autllorit\ w'ii.fa'ts irr r:i 1s'c-nce to the cxtent of confir,i,r-e t[u rra-vrrrr:nts status of thc pc.irio r r , c.ilj,ing u irh thc sante that he las e;r,: , ,iic(l \,jtlt the $,r.it

¶44

petitio r. I rc inrpugned ortlcr datecl 20.07.2()21 passecl by the Additional )r'nnlrssloner. (App.:als_iI)(Hyi))

¶45

IS rccoldingly sel

¶46

aside,qlraslrr I tnd thc nlatter is t.emitted bacl. to r(,:j x)n.lent No.l to reco,si,.icr ll ,_, uf lreal ., its ori, rrrerits aftcr due .,,:..illr.atitx of the copy ol thi c.^.lrtlan that thc pr_titioner shall producc bcr,rpc lils appellate authoriti n l lt, llttrsuing his lrpl:rcrrl. The respo rdelt lrr..l rs expected to take ll ( r,( ls ()n on the altpcal at the earlier;t. prt ti r11f 1,1, ryithin a pcriod o^'lirrrr r'(..1) rveeks

¶47

Wirh tlrc. rl.orc observation and direction, the \,r.it Petition ls allowed. \o or :jr. r iis to CoSIS

¶48

II As a secluc , niscellaneous applications pending if any in this writ

¶49

petttion. slnll : lrrJ closed.

¶50

SD/. P. PADIIIANABHA REDDY ASSISIAYT REGISTRAR i/TRUE COPY// s=I.,ritiru oFFrcERoFFrcER

¶51

To, s=I.,ritiru oFFrcERoFFrcER 1 F,oo r 1 +^[:, txli#1^{a 3' :T,:fl "il::J i83:f; I;i3;Si} I,*,,;:lt, : 1, ; 6o7th i^{I 1,,} :'_"",: :,6?l #, ; #l,f,s^j, i[ n:,. it i: :,e ilfff#^| ?i] ^d:l ";J^{lt, I f I}

¶52

The Commissioner of Central Tax, Medchal GST Commisisonerate, CF36 plus 25V, Redhills, Hyderabad, Tetangana 500004

¶53

The Secretary (Revenue), Union of lndia, lrrlinistry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Room No. 46, North Btock New Delhi 1 i 000i

¶54

One CC to SRI KARAN TALWAR, Advocate. tOpUCl 6. One CC to SRI DOIMINIC FERNANDES, Advocate. tbpUCI 7. One CC to SRI Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Soliciior Gen-eral Of lndia, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. tOpUCl

¶55

B. Two CD Copies. BSK GJP,, b.

HIGH COURl

\ DATED:171A8t2.023

ORDER

WP.No.22173 o12023

S IATE O
t'. )- 't,
C)l
-L"
) tq \\t NB
.'ir <,. j,,.
t'-'
'.<br>

¶61

ALLOWING C F THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CC STS

¶62

,
z-<br>(- .?
Y
<= ,1,

M/s.Cvk Technologies Private Limited v. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals-Ii)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Cvk Technologies Private Limited v. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals-Ii)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Venkateswara Feeds Vs Union of India

M/s. R. K. Trade Links Vs Union of India

Smt.Dandura Swarna Latha Vs Lok Adalat

Roop Charan Agarwal and 2 others Vs Principal Additional Director General and 4 others

M/S Cvk Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Additional Commissioner (Appeals-Ii)

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-1 Vs M/s. Radical Bio Organics Limited