9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registration, was that since the petitioner was an assessed tax payer, and as he has failed to file his continuous returns for a period of over six months which was otherwise mandatory under the Act, and hence his registration was cancelled. The petitioner has contended, that the aforesaid cancellation of the registration of the petitioner vide the order of Assistant Commissioner, on 21.09.2019, was without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and hence it would be bad in the eyes of law. 2. Be that as it may, factually the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted, that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm, which is presently engaged in performing the work of painting and conducting repairing work, and since being a service provider, under the Uttarakhand Goods and Service Tax, Act, which was required to be registered and which admittedly itself had got registered on 03.07.2017. The petitioner submits that on account of the financial loss it had suffered a financial crisis, in the year 2019- 2020, and hence he was not able to pay the tax returns for the period, which had constituted, as to be the basis and the reasoning for cancellation of his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and hence he submits that the cancellation order, which was made, while exercising the powers under Section 29 (2) (C) of the GST Act, ought not to have been passed in the manner in which it has been done, and in that context, he makes a reference to Section 29 (2) (c), of the Act, which is extracted hereunder:- 29. (2). The proper officer may cancel the registration of a person from such date, including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit, where, - (a).... (b) .... (c) Any registered person, other than the person specified in clause b, has not furnished returns for a continuous period of six months or. 5. The provisions of Section 29 (2) (c), which empowers the Competent Authority, (registering authority), to cancel the registration is a self contained provision, where the power of cancellation, could be exercised by the Assessing Authority for cancellation of the registration, subject to satisfying the condition of non fulfillment of the conditions, which otherwise an assessee was required to adhere to, for the purposes of submissions of the returns for the period, as it has been detailed therein under Section 29 (2) (c) of the Act. Its not only that, this Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thorised officer were an appellant and the provisions of this Act relating to appeals shall apply to such application. (4) The Appellate Authority may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of three months or six months, as the case may be, allow it to be presented within a further period of one month. (5) Every appeal under this section shall be in such form and shall be verified in such manner as may be prescribed. (6) No appeal shall be filed under sub-section (1), unless the appellant has paid - (a) In full, such part of the amount of tax, interest, fine, fee and penalty arising out from the impugned order, as is admitted by him; and (b) a sum equal to ten per cent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute arising from the said order, in relation to which the appeal has been filed. 6. On the scrutiny of sub-section (1) of Section 107 of the Act, the specific period of limitation, as prescribed therein, for the purposes of preferring of an appeal, against the order of cancellation of the registration, is that of three months, from the date of the decision itself or order is commun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... barred by 52 days only, and it ought not to have been rejected, under the pretext of the extended period of limitation which had been provided by the Hon'ble Apex Court for the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021. However, the petitioner's appeal was rejected on the ground of limitation by one of the impugned order under challenge i.e. order dated 26.06.2021, whereby after its rejection the "Form GST APL-01", was issued. 9. The petitioner's has tried to submit, that the aforesaid extension of limitation, as it was provided by the Hon'ble Apex Court, has been made applicable before the Taxing Appellate Forums too, in view of the circular which was later issued on 27.07.2021, by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and Customs, in fact this circular too, would not be of any benefit to the petitioner, for the reason being, that the adoption of the principle for the extension of the limitation period based on the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment, which was adopted by the Board, it was only on 27.07.2021, i.e. much after preference of an appeal by the petitioner on 10.04.2021. Thus, the knowledge, which the petitioner attributes, that he could not obtain the knowledge, for a period of 477 da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner; for the reason being that if the principal ratio which had been laid down by the full bench judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, is taken into consideration, it has rather laid down a specific classification and distinction too, and had provided for the circumstances under, which the High Courts can scrutinize the principal order of cancellation of the registration, which can be widely enumerated on scrutinizing the judgment of the full bench. On the basis of these seven major guiding factors, which has been provided by the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, for the purposes of principle of attracting Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the purposes to scrutinize the order which has been passed under Section 29 (2) (c) of the Uttarakhand VAT Act, the principal grounds, which has been laid down by the full bench of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court are as follows:- (1) That the writ jurisdiction, can be extended to scrutinize the principle order of cancellation of registration, subject to the condition, that the order has been passed without jurisdiction. In fact, it is not a case, ever argued at an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has over-step the exercise of its powers. It is not so in the present case because if the order of 21.09.2019, is scrutinized, it apparently speaks about, and which is also an admitted case of the petitioner too, that the returns for the period of six months was not filed, and hence it cannot be said that the authority, while passing the order of cancelling the registration, had over-stepped in the exercise of its power, which has been otherwise vested with it under the law. Because the factum of default was apparent and admitted, which attracted, the provisions contained under Section 29 (2) (c). (5) Another exception which has been carved out by the full bench of the Gujarat High Court, is when the authority has barged over its jurisdiction and has then cancelled the registration. It is not a case here, where the authority cancelling the order has misinterpreted or misapplied the provisions of Section 29 (2) (c) of the Act, which provided with an inherent power to the Assessing Authority i.e. Assistant Commissioner, GST, to cancel the registration in an event of an apparent non submission of the return within the time period as prescribed, therein. Hence, which in the instant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
