Allowed

Srr Enterprises v. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals-Ii)

Telangana HC3 Oct 2023WP/25671/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed the writ petition challenging the rejection of an appeal for revocation of GST registration cancellation and the impugned cancellation order. The Court, considering the admitted delay and the petitioner's readiness to pay late fees, set aside the orders and remitted the matter for restoration consideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 08.08.2023 and 25.03.2023 were set aside; matter remitted to Respondent No. 3 to consider restoration of GST registration.

Srr Enterprises Vs The Additional Commissioner… — GST and Indirect Tax | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸⁶ ]

¶2

H'GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY

¶6

THE HON,BLE SRI J USTICET}?MI NARAYANA ALI SHETTY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 25671 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

SRR Enterprises, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory, H. No. 2-9014, Eligaidu Shivapally, Pedadapalli-50525, Telangana

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The Additional Commissioner (Appeals-ll), 7th Floor, GST Bhavan, L.B. Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500004, Telangana.

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner, Medchal Commissionerate, Division Manchiryal, Pedappaly Range.

¶14

The Superintendent, J9CQ⁺ 6XJ, Hyderabad-Ramagundam Road, Shanthi Nagar, Pedappalli Telangana-505172. ...RESpoNDENrs

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of lt/andamus declaring proceedings or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the action of the Respondent No. 1 on 08.08.2023 having identification number Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-GST-MD-APZ-O71-2023-24 in rejecting the appeal filed for revocation of the cancellation of their Central Goods and Services (GST) regiskation as arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and/or pass Such other orders

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s T. SHMNI REDDY

¶17

Counsel for Respondents: SRI DOMINIC FERNENDEZ

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

HONOIIRABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM :KOSHI AND

¶20

HON'BLE SFI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANII, ALIISIIETTY

¶21

WRIT PETITION NO.25671 OF 2023

¶22

ORDER: (per Hott'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

¶23

The challerrge in the writ petition is to the order:l appeal, dated O8.08.2O2.), whereby the appeal by the t,etitionr:r ergainst the order in o'iginal, dated 25.O3.2023, fcr rerrocation of cancelation of G iT registration of the petitioner stoo<l r'ejected.

¶24

Learned crrunsel for the petitioner in this ,:ase has admitted two things, i) that there was a delan, on his prart in filing the returns and ii) that there rvas also delay on his part so far as liling of e .ppeal is concerned. Nonethet-.ss, thr: harned counsel for the :etitioner submits that t}re delay at the first instance in Iiling of the returns took place on a(:count ,rf c:ertain administrative r )asons, ',l,here the work e)i:ecut€:d by the petitioner, who iri otherwise is a civil work contractrtr, used to receive the paym ents on od hoc basis periodi<:ally arLd in the process, there was a delay that occurred. l,eanecl courrsel ibr the petitioner also sr bmits that the petitioner is also reacty t.o pay whatever is the lz.te fee or othenvise, which are required fcr not having filed a retrrrn within the stipulated period. It war; also the

¶25

PSK,J& LNA,J lrP No.25671 of 202 3

¶26

¶27

contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner is not going to benefit the respondent-Department in any manner for the reason that unless the registration part is restored, the petitioner would not be in a position to further submit the GST returns and pay the regular taxes under the GST law.

¶28

l.earned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kritika Agarwal vs. Union of India aad othetsl, wherein the High Court in the case of cancellation of GST registration had observed that "the measure of cancellation of GS? must be exerci.sed uith circum.spection and onlA in cases, uhere it is necessary", This in otherwise means that the intention of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court by allowing the writ petition was that the authorities concern should take a more pragmatic approach so far as the case where GST registration is concerned and cancellation should not be resorted in a mechanical ma-nner or as a matter of routine. Similar decision has also been passed by Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.36l74 of 2022 urde order dated 2O.O9.2O21, where the Division^Bench had set-aside the order of

¶29

t w.p.(c) 9424/2023 and CM No5-36000/2023 &36001/2023

¶30

PSI:.J& LNA,J wl No.25671 of2023

¶31

¶32

t f

¶33

tJle appellate aul hority and the matter had beerr^{rem arlde,l back} for fresh conside^-ation on its own merits..

¶34

Learned cc unsel for the Department, on the oflter hand, contends that sirrce there is an admitted delay on the^p,art of^the petitioner both at the first instance of filing of the returns and then at the time of liling of the appeal, the order passed by the authority cannot said to be in any manner contrary to law.

¶35

Having heard the contentions put-forth on either sitle and on perusal of the record, given submission by thr: k:arned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is read5' to pay whatever is the late fee as per the Rules so far as th,: delayed submission of re turns is concerned. Taking into conside ration the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in thrr case of Kritika Agarwal (supra), we are inclined to sr:t-asiCe' ttre two orders i.e., the inrpugned order of the appellate author.t5z, dated 08.08.2023 and the order of cancellation of CiST r,:gistration, dated 25.03.2021i and remit the matter back to the :respc,ndent No.3 to conside r the request of the petitioner so Iar as restoration of reg stration is concerned.

¶36

It goes without saying that the petitioner rvould be required to pay vhatever is the late fee under the Rules and

¶37

PSKJ& LNA.J WP No.25671 o[2023

¶38

¶39

Circulars governing the freld so far as the delayed submission of returns is concerned. It is also made clear that since we have remitted it back to the respondent No.3, the question of the limitation should not come in the way of petitioner so far as approaching the respondent No.3 seeking for restoration of registration of GST is concemed.

¶40