Laxmi Cranes & Trailers Pvt Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner, CTO 1 Circle, GST Complex, Thevara Ernakulam; Joint Commissioner, GST Department; Goods and Services Tax Network

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.** **THURSDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 1ST POUSHA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 30621 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** LAXMI CRANES & TRAILERS PVT LTD, VII/602A, NEAR KUNDANOOR JUNCTION MARADU P.O ,ERNAKULAM-682 304 REPRESENTED BY IT'S MANAGING DIRECTOR BHASI K NAIR. BY ADV SOJAN JAMES ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 DEPUTY COMMISIONER, CTO 1CIRCLE, GST COMPLEX THEVARA ERNAKULAM-682015. 2 JOINT COMMISIONER, GST DEPARTMENT,GST COMPLEX, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM – 682 015. 3 GOODS AND SERVICES TAX NETWORK, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, EAST WING, 4TH FLOOR, WORK MARK-1, AEROCITY, NEW DELHI – 110 037. BY SRI.ALFRED LIONEL WINSTON M, SC SMT.THUSHARA JAMES, SR.GP SRI.S.MANU, DSGI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P (C) No.30621/2022 -2- ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has approached this court being aggrieved by the fact that registration of the petitioner granted under the provisions of the CGST / SGST Acts have been cancelled by Ext.P5 order dated 26.02.2022. The petitioner was served with Ext.P3 show cause notice dated 02.09.2021 to which the petitioner filed Ext.P4 objection. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that Ext.P5 order of cancellation dated 26.02.2022 is illegal and _non est_ in law on account of the fact that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner pursuant to the issuance of the show cause notice. It is submitted that a reading of the provisions of Section 29 along with Rule 22 of the CGST Rules suggest beyond doubt that the mere issuance of a show cause notice is not sufficient and the section requires an opportunity of personal hearing to be granted to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner has filed belated appeal challenging Ext.P5 order of cancellation. 3. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that there is no dispute that the petitioner failed to file returns for the specified period and therefore there is no illegality whatsoever in the order of cancellation. It is submitted that the procedure contemplated by law was followed before completing the proceedings against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner did not apply for revocation within the time specified in Section 30 and also did not file any appeal within the time. W.P (C) No.30621/2022 -3- 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents, I am of the view that this writ petition is liable to be allowed. The show cause notice issued to the petitioner in this case is produced as Ext.P3. A perusal of Ext.P3 shows that the same has been issued in Form GST Reg 31. The said form is one for suspension of revocation and not for cancellation of registration. Further, in Ext.P3 the reasons stated for proposing cancellation of registration are recorded as under: _“Whereas on the basis of information which has come to my notice, it appears that your registration is liable to be cancelled for the following reasons:_ _Returns furnished by you under Section 39 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017_ _Observations_ _Failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months._ _You are hereby directed to furnish a reply to the notice within thirty days from the date of service of notice.”_ The notice is absolutely vague and it is not clearly specified with any clarity, the reasons for proposing cancellation even the period for which there was alleged failure to file returns is not specified. I have in my judgment in W.P (C) No.28783/2022 held as follows. “5. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader and Adv.Alfred, learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The reasons which compel me to take such a view are the following: - W.P (C) No.30621/2022 -4- (i) Ext.P5 show cause notice issued to the petitioner has been issued in Form GST REG-31. That form is to be issued in relation to proceedings for suspension of registration and is issued with reference to Rule 21A of the CGST/SGST Rules. It is clear that Form GST REG-31 is one relatable to proceedings for suspension of registration and cannot be treated as a show cause notice under Rule 21 of the CGST Rules, which requires the issuance of a notice in form GST REG-17. Ext.P5 does not even contain all the details contemplated by the form appended to the Rules. A reading of Ext.P5 suggests that the Officer issued the notice in form GST REG-31 by omitting specific details from the form and by treating it as a notice for cancellation. It is a principle at the heart of administrative law that where the law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner alone. In _**Babu Verghese v. Bar**_ ## _**Council of Kerala, (1999) 3 SCC 422,**_ it was held:- _**“31.** It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor v. Taylor [(1875) 1 Ch D 426 : 45 LJCh 373] which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor [(1936) 63 IA 372 : AIR 1936 PC 253] who stated as under:_ _“[W]here a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all.”_ _**32.** This rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of V.P. [AIR 1954 SC 322 : 1954 SCR 1098] and again in Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1961 SC 1527 : (1962) 1 SCR 662] . These cases were considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh [AIR 1964 SC 358 : (1964) 1 SCWR 57] and the rule laid down in Nazir Ahmad case [(1936) 63 IA 372 : AIR 1936 PC 253]_ W.P (C) No.30621/2022 -5- _was again upheld. This rule has since been applied to the exercise of jurisdiction by courts and has also been recognised as a salutary principle of administrative law.”_ Therefore, the action taken by the officer by initiating proceedings in form GST REG-31 of the CGST Rules and completing the proceedings for cancellation of registration by issuing Ext.P1 order is clearly without jurisdiction. If the Officer wishes to initiate proceedings for cancellation of registration, he must issue a notice as specified in Rule 21 of the CGST Rules and in form GST REG-17 and not in form GST REG-31. (ii) The Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in _**Aggarwal**_ _**Dyeing and Printing**_ (Supra) has considered an almost identical situation. The Court considered the contents of the show cause notice issued in that case and came to the conclusion that the show cause notice was woefully inadequate inasmuch as it did not specify the reasons which compelled the Officer to initiate action for cancellation of registration. Even in the facts of this case, the show cause notice (Ext.P.5) reads thus:- ## _“Show Cause Notice for Cancellation of Registration_ _Whereas on the basis of information which has come to my notice, it appears that your registration is liable to be cancelled for the following reasons:-_ _1. returns furnished by you under section 39 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017_ ## _Observations_ _Failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months_ W.P (C) No.30621/2022 -6- _You are hereby directed to furnish a reply to the notice within thirty days from the date of service of this notice. xx xx xx xx xx xx”_ Apart from the fact that Ext.P.5 is issued in the wrong form, it is also bad for the complete absence of any detail. It is clearly vague and therefore the law laid down in the judgments of the Gujarat High Court in _**Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing (supra)**_ and _**Sing Traders (supra)**_ clearly apply. I am in respectful agreement with the views expressed in those decisions. The judgments of the Karnataka High Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court relied on by the learned Senior Government Pleader appear to have been handed down in completely different fact situations. I am also not inclined to follow the law laid down by the Court in those judgments; (iii) The contention taken by the learned Government Pleader that since the Court deals with fiscal legislations, the law must be strictly interpreted in favour of the revenue is not a principle that applies to the situation that this Court is concerned. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in _**Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai**_ v. _**Dilip Kumar and Company and others; (2018) 9 SCC 1;**_ held that provisions of a taxing statute have to be strictly construed in favour of the assessee in the event of doubt or ambiguity while exemption notifications granting concessions or exemptions have to be generally interpreted in favour of the revenue, again in the case of ambiguity. However, the Supreme Court in Government of _**Government of Kerala and another**_ v. _**Mother**_ W.P (C) No.30621/2022 -7- _**Superior Adoration Convent**_ ; _**(2021) 5 SCC 602**_ has taken the view that where concessions or exemptions are granted with a specific purpose of promoting or encouraging a certain activity the principle that such concessions/exemptions must be interpreted in favour of the revenue does not apply. In the facts of these cases, this Court is concerned with the provisions of Sections 29/30 of CGST/SGST which gives to the power to cancel registration and also to revoke it. These are not provisions which need to be interpreted with reference to the principles laid down in the _**Dilip Kumar (supra)**_ and in _**Mother Superior Adoration Convent**_ .” For the above reasons, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P5 stands quashed. The quashing of the impugned order of cancellation will not have the effect of absolving the petitioner of any fiscal liability. The petitioner will be required to file all defaulted returns together with tax, late fee, interest, penalty etc., within a period of two weeks from the date on which the registration of the petitioner is restored in compliance with this judgment. Any other contentions taken in the writ petition are left open. Sd/- **GOPINATH P. JUDGE** DK/AMG W.P (C) No.30621/2022 -8- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30621/2022** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit.P1 TRUE COPY OF GST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED.21.9.2017 Exhibit.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER ISSUED BY CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION DATED.6.3.2019 Exhibit.P3 TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED.2.9.2021 Exhibit.P4 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST FOR EXTENTION OF DUE DATE OF PAYMENT SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED.15.9.2021 Exhibit.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER FOR CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION OF THE PETITIONER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED.26.2.2022