Disposed

M/s. Al-Arif Milk Center v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Mar 2025WP/26201/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST registration cancellation challenged on the ground of a cryptic show cause notice lacking factual details and a cancellation order containing contradictory findings. The High Court set aside the show cause notice, cancellation order and appellate order, reserving liberty to the revenue to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Show cause notice dated 28.03.2023, cancellation order dated 24.04.2023 and appellate order dated 09.08.2024 set aside; liberty reserved to respondents to proceed afresh; no costs.

M/s. Al-Arif Milk Center Vs The State of Telangana — GST and Indirect Tax | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

[³⁴⁴⁶ ]

¶3

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

¶4

TUESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY^{OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING^{CHIEF JUST]CE SUJOY PAUL} AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE^RENUKAYARA

¶7

WRIT PETITIO N NO: 26201 OF²⁰²⁴

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s. Al-Arif Milk Center,^{(36GSGPM131BM1ZF) representedby-ils} lroprietor Sii. nOOut Jaber Mohanimed,^{having situatedat H No. 5-4-156' Rickshaw} Colony, Pothireddipalle, Sangareddy,^{Telangana-502001}

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana,^{representedby its Principal} 9ecretary^Revenue Deoartment Commertial Taxds^{Telangana SecretariatHyderabad.}

¶13

z. Th6 Commissioner of State Taxes,^{C.T Complex, Nampally' Hyderabad'} a. The Rppellate Joint Commissioner^{(ST),SecunderabadDivision Hyderabad,} Office ai Sth Floor, C.T Complex,^{Nampally, Hyderabad.}

¶14

The Deputy State Tax Officei,^{Sangareddy-ll Circle, Nizamabad Division'}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of^{lhe constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be} pleased to issue order or direction, more^{particularlyone in the nature of the Writ} of Mandamus declaring the^{action of RespondentNo.3 in passingthe order} dated OgtOBt2O24 rejecting the^{PetitionersAppealvide Order No'} 2D360824027164F in confirming^{the order dated.24.04.2023in referenceNo.} 2A36O4230438O4N^passed by^{the RespondentNo.4 in cancelling the GST} Registration certificate^{vide it's GSTINNo.36GSGPM1318M1ZF with effect from} 28.03.2023 as arbitrary,^{illegal, unjust, unreasonable and against the of} principles of natural^justice and violation^{of Article 14, 19,21 of the constitution} of lndia and consequently set^{aside the Rejection order dated 0910812024} rejecting the Petitioner's^{Appealvide orderNo. 2D36O824O27164Fin confirming} the order dated.24.04.2}23^{in referenceNo. 2A360423043804Npassed by the}

¶17

Respondent No.4 in cancelling the GST Registration^{Certjficate videits GSTIN} No. 36GSGPM 1318\A1ZF with effect from 2810312023^{in the interest of justice} lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumsl.ances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to suspend the Order dated 09.08.2024^passed by the^{Respondent No.3 thereby} rejecting the Petitioner's Appeal vide Order No. 2D360824O27164Fⁱⁿ confirming the order dated.24.04.2023 in reference No. 2A360423043804N^passed by the Respondent No.4 in cancelling the GST Registration Certificate^vide its GSTIN No. 36GSGPM1318l\412F with effect from 28.03.2023 in the interest of^justice, in the interest of^{justice, pending} disposal of the above said writ^petition

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. VEDANTAM SRIRAMNIVAS FOR SRI V. RAGHUNADH

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI T. CHAITANYA KIRAN, AGP FOR

¶21

SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL GOVT PLEADER FOR STATE TAX

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL

¶24

AND

¶25

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.262OL of 2o24

¶27

ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justtce Sujog Paul)

¶28

Sri Vedantam Sriramnivas, learned counsel appearing for Sri V.Raghunadh, learned counsel for the petitioner arrd Sri T. Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Specia-l Government Pleader for State Tax appearing for the respondents.

¶29

With the consent, finally heard.

¶30

In this writ petition the show cause notice for cancellation of registration of the petitioner dated 28 .O3.2O23, the order dated 24.04.2023 cancelling the registration and the appellate order dated 09.08.2024 rejecting the petitioner's appeal are called in question

¶31

The principal argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the show cause notice is cryptic in nature and it *4 d,oes not contain any factual details and only pregnant with

¶32

¶33

reproduction of the provision on the strength of whiclL action can be taken. Thus, the show cause notice is vague in nature. The order of cancellation dated 24.O4.2023 is assailed by contending that in the firs;t line, it is stated that the order was in reference to the petitioner's reply dated 13.04.2023 in response t,r the show cause notice dated 28.03.2023 and in the second iine, it is mentioned that no reply was filed. Thus, there exists a procedural infirmity ald violation of principles of natural jus;tice. The appellate order rs also under challenge.

¶34

Learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax submits that as per Ser:tion lO7 of the Centra_l Goods and Servic:es Tax Act, 2017, the appeal must be frled within ninetl,days and the appellate authority can condone the delay for thirty rnore days, whereas in th,s present case, the petitioner filed app,:al beyond four months. 'lhus, we do not find any error in t.he appellate order dated 09.O8.2C,24.

¶35

However, the fact remains that the appellate aut.horitv has ng! decided the appeal on merits. The impugned show cause

¶36

¶37

notice certainly 1S cryptic in^{nature and does not contain}

¶38

necessary factual^details.

¶39

In W.P.No. l74OO^{of 2024, this Court at relevantparagraphs}

¶40

opined as^under:

¶41

.6. The singular reason assigned in the impugned^notice dated²⁹ .O2.2024^{reads asunder:}

¶42

"1. Section 29(2)(e)-registration^{obtainedby mealsof} fraud, willful^{misiepresintationor suppressionof facts"'}

¶43

Apart from this^{bald statement, there exists nothing in the} show cause^{notice which can throw light as to-whatis the} nature of^{.fraud,or \rillful misrepresentation,or .suppressron} .ii".t' by the^{petitioner'Thus,show causenotice is cryptic} and an example^{of non application of mind' In absenceof} factual basis^{and n"ce"s''ry details' notice becomes} vulnerable.

¶44

This Court,^{recently, considered this aspect in T S R} ExPorts^{(suProl) and heldas under:}

¶45

tn me o the he thot the b the the ho co o or u)as dranan is .s e show e LN r idered S lds out the on the s A can reo not t and not a 1O. Tlrc Apex^{Court expressedtLLe need of issuance of such} niiii inZo""r"^{Bani us DebasisDos [2003] 4 SCC 557'} at para^{No . 1 5} ,^{uhichreads tt-s under:}

¶46

" 15. ...Notice^{is the} first^{Limb ofthis prtnciPte.It must} ous It shou^{ld opt)rise the} be Dreclse^{and u} porlu deterlntna^{tiuelu o} f^{the case he hosto meeL Time} giuen for the^{purposeslautd beadequote so as fo}

¶47

¶48

er.able him to make his representation. In the absence oJ a notice of the kind. and. such reasonablp, opporhtnitg, the order passed becomes urhottA uitiatecl.. TL,.us. it ts but essential tlut a partg should.Te put o,t natice of the cose before anA ad.uerse ord.er is passe,:l agalnst him. This is one of the most important pn'..naples of nah,Lral justice. tt is afi.er all an approuet:l ruie, of fair ptay. The concept hos gained. stgrit\cano:t and shades uith time..."

¶49

In the Rajesh Kumar us. CIT [2006] jS7 Taxn..tan !981?8_7^{yR 91/ [2007] 2 SCC1Bt,the Apex Court at pttra} No.61, held as under:

¶50

"61. ...The notice issued moy onlg contain bieJlA tfu. issues uhich the assessing olfcer thinks to bt: necessary. The reasons assigned therefor need not be: detat[ed ones. But thot uLould not mean that tht, pn,"Lciples of iustice are not require dtobe compliec'. tuith. Onlg because certain consequences uottld ensue, if the principles of natural justice are required to be con'Lptied uith, the same by itself utoutd, not ntean thal the court would not insist on complying uttth the fundamentat^pinciples of laut..."

¶51

This Court in Sri Auanthika Sai Venkatct us. DepL.:.tA State^'l'o-y. Officer [202a] 159 tox.mann.com 23.5/ 83 GS'TL 311 (Telangana)/ lW.P.No.1596 of 2024, doted 23_1_20:,t41 and S.B. Traders us. The Supeintendent 120221 1,15 taxmann.com 556/ [2023] 96 cS? j 3/ 67GSTL' j75 (Telangana)/ lW.P.Nos.39498 and 395O2 of 2022, dated 28-10-2'0221, interfered uLith the impuqned proceedin,xs and ord.er therein because the reasotT.s Luere not mentioned while in.itiatinq oroceedinqs t the oetitioners therein.

¶52

Needless to mention tlnt the shout cause notice dat:td O_9.1 1 2023 became the foundation for issuance of ord.ers dated 219.1 1.2023 and 25.02.2024, since the -foindati.tn connot sustain judiciaL scruting, the entire edifi.ce of orde,s passed thereupon are liable to be jettisoned".

¶53

(Emphasis Su.pplied)

¶54

Sinc,: the show-cause notice and suspensi,tn of registratiorr is founded upon a cryptic notice dated 29.02.2022:-, both are set aside. On regular basis, rve are painfully r)oticing this kind of noticesl whereby, w ithout assigning adequate reasons, the business of taxpa,r'er is suddenl" suspended. In absence of basic reasons avtrilable

in the show-cause notice, the party aggrieved by it cannot even prefer an effective representation. We wonder how in such an insensitive and mechanical manner, the registrations are being suspended by issuing defective showcause notices. Such orders certainly have an adverse impact on the livelihood of taxpayer and hits Article 2 1 of the Constitution. The authorities must remind themselves that the words 'LIFE' and 'FILE' contain same letters. Every hle has a nexus with somebody's 'life' or liberty. Thus, the authorities should sensitize themselves and should not pass order/notice in the mechanical manner it is passed in the present case. We hope and trust that, henceforth, the authorities will take care of this aspect. karned counsel for the petitioner insisted for imposition of costs. Faced with this, Sri P.Sri Harsha, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submits that he will appraise the authorities about observation of this Court so that henceforth such mistakes do not occur. In view of this assurance, in the instant case, we are not imposing any costs on the respondents.

¶59

Resultantly, the impugned show-cause notice dated 29.O2.2024 and the order suspending the registration are set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law."

¶60

¶61

It was the minimum expectation from the authority who has issued the show cause notice to mention the factual details on the strength of which, violation is alleged and action is proposed to be taken. The authority has miserably failed to undertake the a-foresaid exercise which runs contra-ry to principles of natural justice. The cancellation order dated 24.O4.2023 is founded upon a defective show cause notice and is also pregnant with contradictory findings.

¶62

¶63

Thus, t.ee impugned show cause notice dated ,28.03.2023, the order dated 24.04.2023 and the appellate c,rder dated O9.O8.2O24 are set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The limitation will not come in the way of the revenue while proceeding afresh against the petitioner.

¶64

I O. Accordingly, the writ petition IS disposed of without

¶65

expresslng any' opinion on the merits of the case. No costs.

¶66

Miscella-r:Leous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶67

SD/.P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA {STANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶68

To,

¶69

SECTION OFFICER

¶70

1 The Principal Secretary Revenue Department Commercial Taxes Telangana Secretariat,T.S;., Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of State Taxes, C.T Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad. 'l !!-9^{npqe_llgtg.loint Commissioner(ST),Secunderabad Diirisioh Hyderabad,} Office at 5th Floor, C.T Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad 4 The Deputy State Tax Officei, Sangardddr-ll eircte, Nizamabad Division. 5 One CC to SRr. V. RAGHUNADH,-Advoc-ate tOpUCI 6 TTiIIo CCs to SF,ECIAL GoVERNMENT PLEA-DER FbR STATE TAX, High Court forthe State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 7. Two CD Copiesr BM LS {ffnl\

HIGH COURT

DATED:1110312025

ORDER

(a og. Tt{E g r4
03 tpn ZW 11(
o
t
.c
Dr tcuF-D ^

¶76

WP.No.26201 of 2024

¶77