High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition allowed; Exts.P2 and P4 quashed; ...

Elvis Sajan Mathew v. Assistant Commissioner, SGST Dept, Commercial Tax Office, II Circle, Kottayam; Commissioner of State Taxes, State GST Dept, Tax Towers, Karama, Thiruvananthapuram; Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 21181 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C.S. Dias
Judgment Date
2023-07-05
Court Decision / Holding
The writ petition is allowed. Exts.P2 and P4 are quashed. The respondents may issue a fresh show-cause notice specifying the exact period for non-filing under GSTR-3B and must provide the petitioner a fair opportunity to submit a defence and be heard before finalising proceedings.
Final Disposition
Writ petition allowed; Exts.P2 and P4 quashed; fresh show-cause may be issued with specificity; fair opportunity of defence to be provided to the petitioner.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Elvis Sajan Mathew

Respondents

  • Assistant Commissioner, SGST Dept, Commercial Tax Office, II Circle, Kottayam
  • Commissioner of State Taxes, State GST Dept, Tax Towers, Karama, Thiruvananthapuram
  • Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • SABU C.J
  • • APARNA ANIL
  • • S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM)
  • • RAHUL A.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt THUSHARA JAMES
  • • SRI. MANU S.

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Elvis Sajan Mathew, challenges Ext.P4, an order cancelling his GST registration following a show-cause Ext.P2 for non-filing of GSTR-3B returns from March 2022 to August 2022. The TSP argues that the show-cause notice Ext.P2 (dated 7.10.2022) and the subsequent Ext.P4 cancellation order were issued in haste, without specific reference to the months of default, and without affording a fair opportunity to defend. The petitioner submits a March 2022 return on 3.11.2022, before Ext.P4, and contends the authority was obliged to issue notice under the proviso to Section 29(2) of the GST Acts. The court finds Ext.P2 vague, the procedure lacking, and the right to defence denied, violating natural justice. It reiterates that quasi-judicial bodies must act with fairness, openness and reasonableness. Exts.P2 and P4 are quashed, and the respondents are permitted to issue a fresh show-cause notice specifying the period of non-filing and ensure fair hearing before any final action. The judgment cites Phoenix Rubbers and relies on natural justice principles, with Justice C.S. Dias delivering the order on 5 July 2023.

Provisions of Law Cited

Proviso to Section 29(2) of the GST Act (State/CGST/SGST)Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem; right to fair hearing)
  • Fairness, openness and reasonableness in quasi-judicial proceedings

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Ext.P2 is vague, failing to specify the months of non-filing and denying a fair opportunity to defend. He notes that he filed the March 2022 GSTR-3B return on 3.11.2022, before Ext.P4, and argues the authority was obliged to issue a notice under the proviso to Section 29(2) of the GST Acts. The lack of perusal and specificity in Ext.P2 rendered the cancellation order arbitrary and violative of natural justice, warranting quashing of Exts.P2 and P4 and issuance of a fresh, specific show-cause.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents rely on the/default non-filing of GSTR-3B for March 2022 to August 2022, asserting that the show-cause was issued for a six-month period and that the cancellation follows the statutory framework. They contend the procedure was not only permissible but also necessary, and they assert the department’s duty to ensure compliance with GST norms; however, they acknowledge the need for due process once a fresh notice is issued.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Phoenix Rubbers v. The Commercial Tax Officer and OthersWP(C) No. 35159 of 2019PositiveThe judgment is cited as supporting the proposition that the show-cause process must be properly reasoned and that the period of non-compliance should be specified to afford a fair opportunity to respond.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Elvis Sajan Mathew v. Assistant Commissioner, SGST Dept, Commercial Tax Office, II Circle, Kottayam; Commissioner of State Taxes, State GST Dept, Tax Towers, Karama, Thiruvananthapuram; Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS`** ## **`WEDNESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1945`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 21181 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` ELVIS SAJAN MATHEW, AGED 25 YEARS 395/C, NUEVO, VADAVATHUR, VIJAYAPURAM, KOTTAYAM, PIN- 686010 ``` ``` BY ADVS. SABU C.J APARNA ANIL S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) RAHUL A. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SGST DEPT, COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE, II CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM.PIN-686002 2COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES, STATE GST DEPT, TAX TOWERS, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695002 3UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT THUSHARA JAMES ``` ``` DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA SRI. MANU S. ``` ## **`THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON`** ## **`05.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:`** ``` WP(C) NO. 21181 OF 2023 2 ``` ## **Dated this the 5[th] day of July, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P4 order passed by the first respondent cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration. 2. The petitioner’s case is that, he is the proprietor of a concern which has a KSGST/CGST registration. For the period from March 2022 to August 2022, there had occurred some delay in submitting Form GSTR 3B return. Consequently, the first respondent had issued Ext.P2 show cause notice to cancel the petitioner’s registration. Immediately, on 3.11.2022, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 return for the month of March, 2022. The authorised officer was obliged to issue notice in terms of proviso to Section 29(2) of the Acts, which is a mandatory requirement to cancel the registration. By Ext.P5 judgment passed by this Court in M/s Phoenix ## **`WP(C) NO. 21181 OF 2023 3`** Rubbers v. The Commercial Tax Officer, the above point stands squarely covered. After a long lapse of time, the first respondent has issued Ext.P4 order cancelling the petitioner’s registration. The entire proceedings leading to Ext.P4 is patently erroneous and vitiated by errors of law. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard; Sri.Sabu C.J, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Thushara James, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri. S. Manu, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the 3[rd] respondent. 4. On a perusal of the pleadings and materials on record, it is apparent that the petitioner had not submitted Form GSTR 3B return for the period from March 2022 to August, 2022. Consequently, the first respondent issued Ext.P2 show cause notice on 7.10.2022, directing the petitioner to show cause why his ## **`WP(C) NO. 21181 OF 2023 4`** registration shall not be cancelled for failure to furnish the returns for a continuous period of six months. 5. The petitioner asserts that, subsequent to Ext.P2 dated 7.10.2022, the petitioner has submitted his return for the month of March 2022 on 3.11.2022. This assertion is not disputed by the respondents. 6. A reading of Ext.P2 show cause notice reveals that the notice is quite vague and issued without any application of mind. I say this because the first respondent has not stated the specific months during which the petitioner has failed to file his returns. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed his returns for the month of March 2022 on 3.11.2022, which is subsequent to the show cause notice and prior to Ext.P4 cancellation order. Thus, I am of the view that as Ext.P2 show cause notice or Ext.P4 order do not advert to any of these aspects, the same is passed in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice, because the petitioner ## **`WP(C) NO. 21181 OF 2023 5`** has been denied his right of defence to Ext.P2 show cause notice. 8. It is trite; that quasi-judicial authorities have to function with fairness, openness and reasonableness. 9. Ext.P2 show cause notice and Ext.P4 order substantiates that the respondents have acted in haste and in an unreasonable manner, denying the petitioner a fair opportunity to defend himself. Hence, Exts.P2 and P4 suffer from the errors of law and are liable to be quashed by exercising the extraordinary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, I allow the writ petition as follows:- (i) Exts.P2 and P4 orders are quashed. (ii) The respondents would be at liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner specifically mentioning the period during which he has failed to file the return under the GSTR 3B. (iii) If the respondents issue such fresh show cause ``` WP(C) NO. 21181 OF 2023 6 ``` notice, then they shall grant the petitioner a fair opportunity to submit his defence and a reasonable opportunity of being heard, before finalising the proceedings. **SD/-** **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** rmm5/7/2023 ## **`WP(C) NO. 21181 OF 2023 7`** ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21181/2023`** ## `PETITIONER EXHIBITS` ``` Exhibit P1A COPY OF THE RETURN FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 2022 IN GSTR-3B FILED ON 31-03- 2022 ``` - `Exhibit P2 A COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 7/10/2022 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT` - `Exhibit P3 A COPY OF THE RETURN FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2022 IN GSTR-3B FILED ON 03-112022` - `Exhibit P4 A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8/01/2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT` - `Exhibit P5 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 03-02-2020 IN WP(C) NO. 35159 OF 2019 [PHOENIX RUBBERS VS THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS]` - `Exhibit P6 A COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 3/2023 DATED 31ST MARCH, 2023` - `Exhibit P7 A COPY OF THE RETURN FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL, 2022 IN GSTR-3B FILED ON 10-112022` - `Exhibit P8 A COPY OF THE RETURN FOR THE MONTH OF MAY, 2022 IN GSTR-3B FILED ON 13-01-2023` - `Exhibit P9 A COPY OF THE RETURN FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE, 2022 IN GSTR-3B FILED ON 06-04-2023` - `Exhibit P10 A COPY OF THE RETURN FOR THE MONTH OF JULY, 2022 IN GSTR-3B FILED ON 12-05-2023` - `Exhibit P11 A COPY OF THE RETURN FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST, 2022 IN GSTR-3B FILED ON 15-052023` ``` WP(C) NO. 21181 OF 2023 8 ``` ``` Exhibit P12A COPY OF THE RETURN FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 IN GSTR-3B FILED ON 15- 05-2023 ``` ``` Exhibit P13A COPY OF THE RETURN FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, 2022 IN GSTR-3B FILED ON 17-05- 2023 ```