Remanded

M/s R.R. Projects v. The Superintendent

Telangana HC15 Jun 2023WP/45157/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the respondent's order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration under the CGST Act. The court found the order arbitrarily passed as the authority acknowledged receipt of a reply but cancelled registration for failure to reply. The matter was remanded to pass a fresh order.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order dated 29-11-2021 cancelling GST registration and remand the matter to the first respondent to pass a fresh order allowing the petitioner to submit reply and returns.

M/s R.R. Projects Vs The Superintendent — GST and Indirect Tax | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹¹ ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE^{UJJAL BHUYAN} AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

WRlT PETITION NO: 45157 OF²⁰²²

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s R.R. Projects, Plot^{No.25, H.NO.114125,Sai Enclave, Sriram RTC} Colonv, Par6vathapur,^{Peerzadiguda,Medchel Mandal,Malkajgiri'} Telanlana. Rep. by its Proprietor^{Mr. Thumma Thomas Reddy}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Superintendent, Tamaka-^{1 Circle, Secunderabad GSTRange'} Secunderabad GST Division, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Commissioner of State Tax,^{Government of Telangana,Hyderabad.}

¶13

State of Telangana, Rep. by^{its Principal Secretary (Revenue[CT)} Department, Secretariat^{Buildings, Hyderabad.}

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article²²⁶ ot^{lhe Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavitfiled therewith, the High Court maybe} pleased to issue Mandamus or any other^{appropriate writ or order or directionby} declaring the action of the^{1st respondentin cancelling the GST registration of the} petitioner through the impugned^{proceedings in Form GST REG 19 dated29-11-} 2021 and not re-storing^{the same even after filing all the pending returns and} payment of tax as illegal, arbitrary,^{high handed, without authority of law and} jurisdiction, vitiated on account of violation of^{principlesof naturaljusticeand also} in violation of Article 19 and^{21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set} aside the impugned^{proceedingsof the lst respondent dated 29- 11-2021'}

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To suspend the operation of the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent in Form GST REG 19 dated 29-11-2021 pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SHAIK JEELANI BASHA FOR SRt. BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDY

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: SRl. L. VENKATESWAR RAO, SC FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAI BHIryAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TT'I(ARAMJI

¶23

Writ Petition No.45157 of 2022

¶24

ORDER: Per the Ho4'bte the Chtef Justice ujjal Bhugan)

¶25

Heard Mr.Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel appea-ring on behalf of Mr.Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.L.Venkateswar Rao,^learned Standing counsel for Commercial Taxes appeadng^on behalf of the respondents.

¶26

By filing this petition under Article 226^of Constitution of India, petitioner has^assailed legality^and validity of the order dated 29.77.2021 passed by the first respondent carcelling the Goods and Services Tax^(GST) registration of the petitioner.

¶27

On 19.12.2022, this Court had^{granted libert5rto} the petiiioner to file a better affidavit explaining the^delay in Eling the writ petition. Thereafter,^{petitionerhas filed a} better affidavit. On perusal of the^{averments made in the}

¶28

\rc 'l

¶29

¶30

better affidavit,^{more particularlythose made in paragraph} No.3 thereof,^{we are satisfied that the delay in filing the} u,rit petition^{r.r'as caused b1'goodand sufficientreasons'}

¶31

Be it stated^{that petitioner was a registered taxable} person bearing^{registrationNo'36AAOFR4364CLZ3.under} Centra,l Goods^{ald Services Tax Act, 2017 (briefly'CGST} Act' hereinafter).^{First respondent issued show cause} notice dated^{17 .l I .2021 calling upon the petitioner to} show cause^{as to why its GST registration should not be} cancelled on^{the ground of non-filing of GST returns for a} continuous^{period of six (6) months'}

¶32

It is submitted^{that for variousreasonspetitioner} could not file^{reply to the show cause notice'whereafter} impugned^{order came to be} Passed'

¶33

A^{perusalof the impugned order dated 29'1'I'2021} would go to^{show that first respondent had recorded that} in reference^{to his show cause dated 17 'll'2021} '^petitioner . had submitted^{reply on 27'll'2o21'Thereafter'first} \ --\

I ,

respondent stated that he had examined the reply of petitioner but registration of petitioner was liable to be cancelled on the ground that petitioner had not responded to the show cause notice. From the above, it is evident that the impugned order suffers from serious contradictions. On the one hand frrst respondent says that petitioner had submitted reply but on the other hand he says that GST registration of tlle petitioner was liable to be cancelled for not filing reply. It only shows that first respondent had not applied his mind at all and had mechanically passed the impugned order dated 29.11.2021

¶39

We therefore set aside the order dated 29.77.2021 and remand the matter back to the first respondent for passing fresh order in accordance with law.

¶40

It would be open to the petitioner to submit his reply within a period of 15 days from today whereafter respondent No. 1 shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. We further make it clear that it would be ..I {4'gii.+ .24"..-f

¶41

¶42

open to^{the petitionerto submit the returnsalong with the}

¶43

tax due.

¶44

This^{disposes of the writ petition'}

¶45

Miscelianeous^{applicationspending' ifany' shall}

¶46

stand closed.^{However,thereshall be no orderas to costs'}

¶47

//rRUE coPY// .f"+,r*^oFFlcER

¶48

To, 1 2 3ffi 33133J:I,1.Ifj.3s*3IJfI'5.3?J;3".#",T13'lPiJSltoPUC] 3. Two^{CD CoPies} TJ GJP \ k-

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 510612023

-1H S TA fS
!
I
d to lrrrlsn
.'I
).),'-:, ,,1
..)'
- t-. .-1 -'--

¶54

ORDER

¶55

WP.No.45157 of 2022

¶56

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

M/s R.R. Projects v. The Superintendent

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s R.R. Projects v. The Superintendent

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

M.Narasimha Reddy and Co. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax-Vi

Ravuri Raghuram Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

Three Seasons Logistics Private Limited. Vs The Union of India

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-4 Vs Sri. Krishna Chigullapally

Macharla Mohan Goud Vs Sri Shashi Bhushan Kumar, I.A.S.

M/s.Ta Infra Projects Limited, Vs The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax