Karnataka HC in the case of M/s M.S. Retail Private Limited

Case Covered:

M/s M.S. Retail Private Limited

Versus

The Union of India

Facts of the Case:

The petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the business of trading in bath fittings and sanitary ware. It was duly registered as ‘taxable person’ under the provisions of the CGST Act read with the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KGST Act’). The registration number of the petitioner is GSTIN29AAFCM9224N1ZU.

It is the contention of the petitioner that it has been regularly filing its monthly returns disclosing the trading transactions and also paying the GST tax liability within the due dates.

On the ground that the petitioner had violated certain provisions of the CGST Act and the Rules, a show-cause notice dated 18.03.2020 in Form GST-REG 17 read with Rule 22(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CGST Rules’) was issued to the petitioner by respondent no.3. The notice directed the petitioner to appear before the respondent no.3 on 23.03.2020.

Observations of the Court:

It is not in dispute that the show cause notices, the order of cancellation, and the order rejecting the application for revocation of cancellation are passed by the proper officer. The show-cause notice dated 18.03.2020 and the order of cancellation of registration dated 06.06.2020 have already been challenged before this Court in W.P.No.8167/2020 and cannot be challenged in the present writ petition. Pursuant to the order passed in W.P.No.8167/2020, respondent no.4 has issued the notice dated 03.07.2020 to the petitioner. There is no jurisdictional error in the said notice. The petitioner has made his representation on 06.07.2020 and has been given a personal hearing by respondent no.4 and thereafter, he has passed the order dated 10.07.2020. Thus, the said order is a speaking order and it records the reasons for rejecting the application of the petitioner for revocation of cancellation of registration. The intimation to the petitioner dated 21.07.2020 is pursuant to the order dated 10.07.2020 and it has to be construed as an intimation of the decision taken on 10.07.2020 by respondent no.4, though the reason assigned in the said intimation and the manner in which the same is styled may be erroneous. Even otherwise, the order dated 10.07.2020 is a reasoned order and the same cannot be held as without jurisdiction and in violation of any principles of natural justice. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, it ought to have filed an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The petitioner cannot challenge the same by way of a writ petition.

The decision of the Court:

The writ petition is hereby dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal as contemplated under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, if it so desires, within thirty days from today.

It is made clear that no opinion has been expressed upon the merits of the case. If the petitioner prefers an appeal, it is for the appropriate authority to make a decision.

Read & Download the full Decision in pdf: