Mundra House, 822-A, Shivaju Nagar, Civil Lines, jaipur-302006 9314501680, 9314501791

B.P.Mundra

मानवता से काम करें मन के सारे काम अपने आप हो जायेंगे

इस महीने के इम्पोर्टेंट काम
  • Home
  • GST
  • Cases Income tax
  • MCA
  • Subsidy
  • TDS
  • About Us
  • contact us
  • Login
    • Admin Login
    • Staff Login
    • User Login
  • Loan
  • Apply for job
  • Click Here
  • HOW TO
  • To file ITR for AY 2022-23 kindly give details (and also evidence if yes) of following
  • Categories
    • Articles
    • Authority
    • Benami Transactions (Prohibition)
    • client
    • Constitution of India
    • Finance Act 1994
    • formalities to be completed
    • GST
    • Happiness
    • HOW TO
    • Income Tax
    • Indian Evidence Act 1872
    • Job Application
    • MCA
    • Office system
    • Papers required for filing
    • Principal of mutuality
    • rajasthan public trust
    • Smile
    • Subsidy
    • work report

B.P.MUNDRA

Mundra House, 822-A, Shivaju Nagar, Civil Lines, jaipur-302006 9314501680, 9314501791


Consequences if one fails to furnish three consecutive returns of GST and the department cancels the registration?

B.P.Mundra > Income Tax > Cases Income tax > Consequences if one fails to furnish three consecutive returns of GST and the department cancels the registration?

admin February 22, 2023 0 Comments

Cases Income tax

 53 total views

Consequences if one fails to furnish three consecutive returns of GST and the department cancels the registration?

 

Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Supreme Court under Article 32 cannot be restricted by the provision of any Act to bar or curtail remedies on the genuine reason and cancellation order of GST Registration quashed and set aside.

 

See para

  1. In this regard, a reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs Union of India reported in (1997) 5 SCC 536. The supreme court observed that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Supreme Court under Article 32 cannot be restricted by the provision of any Act to bar or curtail remedies. True that while exercising the constitutional power, the Court would certainly take note of legislative intent manifested in the provisions of the Act and would exercise jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of enactment. The constitutional Courts in exercise of such powers cannot ignore law nor can it override it.

 

  1. Applying the aforesaid guidelines to the facts of the present case, we find that the petitioner, who is sufferer of unique circumstances resulting from pandemic and his health barriers, would be put to great hardship for want of GST registration. The petitioner who is small scale entrepreneur cannot carry on production activities in absence of GST registration. Resultantly, his right to livelihood would be affected. Since his statutory appeal suffered dismissal on technical ground, we cannot allow the situation to continue. We find that, in the facts and circumstances of this case it would be appropriate to exercise our jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

 

14 Even looking to the object of the provisions under GST Act, it is not in the interest of the government to curtail the right of the entrepreneur like petitioner. The petitioner must be allowed to continue business and to contribute to the state’s revenue. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted before us that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay all the dues along with penalty and interest as applicable. In the light of the above submission, we are inclined to allow the writ petition as under :-

 

(i)     The writ petition is allowed.

 

(ii)    The order dated 28-02-2022 suspending the GST registration, the

order dated 14-03-2022 cancelling GST registration of the petitioner passed by the State Tax Officer and the order dated 21-10-2022 passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Tax, Aurangabad (Appeal) No.DC/APP/E-001/ABAD/GST/323/2022-2023 are quashed and set aside.

 

(iii) We hold and declare that the registration No.27AHQPD2485F1Z7 in the name of the petitioner is valid, from 28-02-2022 onwards subject to the condition that the petitioner files up to date GST returns and deposits entire pending dues along with applicable interest, penalty, late fees in terms of Rule 23 (1) of MAST Rules, 2017.

 

 

Bombay High Court

Rohit Enterprises Through Its … vs The Commissioner State Gst Bhavan … on 16 February, 2023

Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, S. G. Chapalgaonkar

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 11833 OF 2022

Rohit Enterprises (Reg. no. 27AHQPD2485F1Z7)

Through its proprietor,

Changdeo Punjaji Deokar,

Age 56 yrs. Occ. Business,

r/o Bajaj Nagar, RN 18/5

Jai Yogehswar Housing Society,

MIDC Waluj, Gangapur,

Aurangabad-431136                                         …Petitioner

 

Versus

  1.       The Commissioner

State GST Bhavan,

Railway Station Road

Aurangabad.

  1.       The Dy. Commissioner,

State Tax (Appeal)

Aur.-VAT-E-001,

Railway Station Road, Aurangabad.

 

  1.       The State Tax Officer,

Aurangabad

Railway Station Road, Aurangabad                   …Respondents

 

 

Mr Alok Sharma, Advocate for Petitioner

Mr A.S. Shinde, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3/State

 

 

CORAM          :   MANGESH S. PATIL AND

S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 31-01-2023 PRONOUNCED ON : 16-02-2023 JUDGMENT : ( PER S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. )

 

  1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

 

 

  1. The petitioner approaches this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with following prayers :-

 

(B)      That the order passed in Appeal no. DC/APP/E-

001/ABAD/GST/323/2022-2023 Dy. Commissioner

(Appeal) Aurangabad may kindly be quashed and set

aside.

 

(C)      That the order passed by the State Tax Officer dt.

14.3.2022 of cancellation of registration may kindly be quashed and set aside.

 

(D) That, the order dt. 28.2.2022 passed by the State Tax Officer suspending the registration w.e.f. 28.2.2022 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

 

(E) That, the Hon’ble High court may kindly hold that, the petitioner registration no.27AHQPD2485F1Z7 is valid from 28.2.20222 onwards.

 

  1. The petitioner is a proprietary firm engaged in the business of fabrication work. It is registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act) as well as Maharashtra State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The certificate of registration dated 20-07-2018 has been issued to his firm with registration No. 27AHQPD2485F1Z7. Petitioner contends that since he had undergone angioplasty, and the firm suffered financial set back in pandemic situation, GST returns from August 2021 could not be filed. Section 29(2) of the GST Act enables proper officer to cancel registration if registered person / firm fails to furnish three consecutive returns. The State Tax Officer, Aurangabad issued a show cause notice dated 28-02-2022 calling upon the petitioner to furnish his explanation within a period of 7 working days. The notice stipulated that the registration of the petitioner stood suspended. The petitioner replied the show cause notice on 03-03-2022. Citing the reason of the financial crunch, he requested for revocation of the notice. However, the State Tax Officer vide order dated 14-03-2022 cancelled the registration with effect from 21-08-2021.

 

  1. The petitioner requested for revocation of the cancellation of registration. In response, the State Tax Officer issued show cause notice for rejection of the application. The petitioner was called upon to furnish the reply within 7 days along with supporting documents like bank statement till the date of the notice, challan of tax, interest and late filing penalty. The matter was taken up for hearing on 25-04-2022. Finally, the State Tax Officer rejected the application of petitioner seeking revocation of cancellation vide order dated 17-05-2022.

 

  1. The petitioner filed appeal under section 107 of the Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 challenging cancellation of registration. It was registered as Appeal No. DCST/Appl./E-001/GST-Revocation/2022- 2023/B-619. The Dy. Commissioner/State Tax (Appeal), Aurangabad Division rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation that the appeal has been submitted beyond the prescribed period provided under section 107 (1) and 107 (4) of the MGST Act, 2017.

 

  1. Mr Alok Sharma, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the vendor of the Bajaj Auto Limited and earns his livelihood through fabrication business. Due to pandemic situation, the business activities of the petitioner were hampered causing huge financial loss. The petitioner was also unwell. In August 2021, he underwent angioplasty. Mr Sharma would further submit that petitioner

 

could not submit his GST returns during the relevant period and suffered cancellation of the resignation. He would submit that the petitioner had approached the appellate authority challenging cancellation of the registration. However, his appeal came to be rejected on technical grounds as it was time barred. The appellate authority is not vested with the powers to condone delay of more than 30 days as per section 107 of the GST Act. The petitioner would not be in a position to continue his business in absence of registration and would face starvation. He would urge this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to protect the fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner.

 

  1. Mr A.S. Shinde, learned AGP supports the impugned order. He would submit that the petitioner was given reasonable opportunity before cancellation of the registration. The show cause notice was issued to him on 28-02-2022 along with order of suspension of registration. The petitioner was further given opportunity to furnish the documents while dealing with his application for revocation of cancellation of registration. The petitioner failed to avail the opportunity, consequently suffered the order of rejection of the application for revocation of cancellation of registration. He would further point out that petitioner failed to file appeal within prescribed period of limitation under section 107(4) of the GST Act, 2017. The appellate authority has rightly dismissed the appeal which was apparently barred by limitation. The petitioner has already availed statutory remedy. Hence, he is not entitled to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

 

  1. We have considered the submissions advanced by both the sides. It appears that the petitioner was earning his livelihood through his fabrication business and requires registration under GST Act to run the business. The entire world suffered during the pandemic. The small scale industrialists and service providers like petitioner lost their business for more than two years. The financial losses suffered during this time cannot be ignored particularly when it comes to small scale businesses and service providers. To add apathy to this situation, the petitioner suffered medical emergency. He was required to undergo medical treatment for heart disease and the procedure like angioplasty. The stringent provisions of GST Act took its own course. The petitioner suffered cancellation of registration. Even he lost his appellate remedy because of lapse of limitation. The petitioner has been practically left remediless. He seeks to invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

 

  1. In our view, the provisions of GST enactment cannot be interpreted so as to deny right to carry on Trade and Commerce to any citizen and subjects. The constitutional guarantee is unconditional and unequivocal and must be enforced regardless of shortcomings in the scheme of GST enactment. The right to carry on trade or profession cannot be curtailed contrary to the constitutional guarantee under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If the person like petitioner is not allowed to revive the registration, the state would suffer loss of revenue and the ultimate goal under GST regime will stand defeated.

 

deserves a chance to come back into GST fold and carry on his business in legitimate manner.

 

  1. There is one more aspect as far as the issue regarding limitation in filing the appeal under Section 107 of MGST Act is concerned. Indeed the Deputy Commissiosner of State Tax has no power to condone the delay beyond 30 days. But then one cannot overlook the aspect of provisions stipulating limitations. The objective is to terminate the lis and not to divest a person of the right vested in him by efflux of time.

 

  1. Since it is merely a matter of cancellation of registration, the question of limitation should not bother us since it cannot be said that any right has accrued to the State which would rather be adversely affected by cancellation.

 

  1. In this regard, a reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs Union of India reported in (1997) 5 SCC 536. The supreme court observed that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India or Supreme Court under Article 32 cannot be restricted by the provision of any Act to bar or curtail remedies. True that while exercising the constitutional power, the Court would certainly take note of legislative intent manifested in the provisions of the Act and would exercise jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of enactment. The constitutional Courts in exercise of such powers cannot ignore law nor can it override it.

 

  1. Applying the aforesaid gidelines to the facts of the present case, we find that the petitioner, who is sufferer of unique circumstances resulting from pandemic and his health barriers, would be put to great hardship for want of GST registration. The petitioner who is small scale entrepreneur cannot carry on production activities in absence of GST registration. Resultantly, his right to livelihood would be affected. Since his statutory appeal suffered dismissal on technical ground, we cannot allow the situation to continue. We find that, in the facts and circumstances of this case it would be appropriate to exercise our jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

 

14 Even looking to the object of the provisions under GST Act, it is not in the interest of the government to curtail the right of the entrepreneur like petitioner. The petitioner must be allowed to continue business and to contribute to the state’s revenue. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted before us that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay all the dues along with penalty and interest as applicable. In the light of the above submission, we are inclined to allow the writ petition as under :-

 

(i)     The writ petition is allowed.

 

(ii)    The order dated 28-02-2022 suspending the GST registration, the

order dated 14-03-2022 cancelling GST registration of the petitioner passed by the State Tax Officer and the order dated 21-10-2022 passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Tax, Aurangabad (Appeal) No.DC/APP/E-001/ABAD/GST/323/2022-2023 are quashed and set aside.

 

(iii) We hold and declare that the registration No.27AHQPD2485F1Z7 in the name of the petitioner is valid, from 28-02-2022 onwards subject to the condition that the petitioner files up to date GST returns and deposits entire pending dues along with applicable interest, penalty, late fees in terms of Rule 23 (1) of MAST Rules, 2017.

 

(iv)    The Rule is made absolute in above terms.

 

 

 

 

[ S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. ]                    [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ]

 

 

 

 

mta

Total Page Visits: 680 - Today Page Visits: 4

← Previous post

Next post →

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Categories

  • 1860 (1)
  • 1956 (1)
  • 1973 (1)
  • 2002 (1)
  • 2013 (1)
  • Articles (77)
  • Authority (1)
  • Benami Transactions (Prohibition) (1)
  • client (59)
  • Code of Criminal Procedure (0)
  • Companies Act (2)
  • Constitution of India (2)
  • Cr.P.C. (2)
  • Due dates (1)
  • Finance Act 1994 (0)
  • formalities to be completed (6)
  • GST (59)
  • Happiness (4)
  • HOW TO (47)
  • HUF Property (1)
  • Income Tax (294)
  • Indian Evidence Act 1872 (1)
  • Indian Penal Code (1)
  • invalid notice (1)
  • Job Application (0)
  • MCA (3)
  • Notice 148 (0)
  • Office system (9)
  • Papers required for filing (6)
  • PMLA Act (1)
  • Prevention of Money Laundering Act (1)
  • Principal of mutuality (1)
  • rajasthan public trust (2)
  • Smile (7)
  • Subsidy (5)
  • work report (2)
  • Archives

    • February 2023
    • January 2023
    • December 2022
    • October 2022
    • September 2022
    • August 2022
    • July 2022
    • June 2022
    • May 2022
    • April 2022
    • March 2022
    • February 2022
    • January 2022
    • December 2021
    • November 2021
    • September 2021
    • August 2021
    • July 2021
    • June 2021
    • May 2021
    • April 2021
    • March 2021
    • February 2021
    • January 2021
    • December 2020
    • November 2020
    • October 2020
    • September 2020
    • August 2020
    • July 2020
    • June 2020
    • May 2020
    • April 2020
    • March 2020
    • February 2020
    • January 2020
    • December 2019
    • November 2019

    Recent Posts

    • कंपनीज की ऑडिट करने वाले कृपया ध्यान दें, अगर ऑडिट रिपोर्ट में इन्वेस्टमेंट के बारे में प्रॉपर्ली डिस्क्लोज नहीं किया तो सीए को पेनल्टी लगेगी इसी प्रकार कोई भी डिस्क्लोजर बाकी रह गया तो पेनल्टी लगेगी-Penalty u/s Section 450 or Failure to disclose properly in an audit report details of current investment by virtue of section 143 of the Companies Act, 2013
    • Consequences if one fails to furnish three consecutive returns of GST and the department cancels the registration?
    • Consequence when there is a delay of only 41 minutes in delivering the consignment and the Adjudicating Authority passed the order of creating Demand of Tax and Penalty of Rs.19,52,542/-
    • Mere pendency of that investigation would not sustain a Provisional Attachment Order(POA) based on allegations which do not form part of those proceedings. Delhi High Court passed the order on 24.01.2023. Kindly click the link to get full order.
    • Q: Whether outstanding demand from a company can be recovered u/s 179 from the director of the company without pointing out that non-recovery was on account of gross negligent, misfeasance or breach of duty on part of the Director in relation to the affairs of the company? The answer was given by The Hon’ble High Court Of Gujarat on dated 16.12.2022