TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 179
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 13.09.2024 and the cancellation of registration dated 01.10.2024. 02. The petitioner M/s Jay Laxmi Industries is a sole proprietorship concern of Mr. Jigneshbhai Jashwantlal Raval engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, disinfectants, etc. The petitioner has had the GST registration of the State of M.P. since 01.07.2017. According to the petitioner, the returns have been submitted under the GST losses upto July 2024 despite that the respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice dated 13.09.2024 proposing cancellation of registration by invoking the provisions of Section 29(2)(e) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred as "CGST Act, 2017") read with Rule 21....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the various High Courts in which the order of cancellation of GST has been set aside because of the non-grant of a personal hearing. 05. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has also illegally cancelled the GST registration with retrospective effect which has been deprecated by the various High Courts in following cases: (i) Suresh Trading Corporation v/s The Assistant Commissioner (Circle) of CGST passed in Writ Petition No.21109 of 2021 by the High Court of Madras, (ii) M/s S.S. Traders v/s State of U.P. and others passed in Writ Tax No.651 of 2021 by the High Court of Allahabad, (iii) M/s Jinesh Associates v/s Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and another passed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7 of 2019 by High Court of Delhi, (iii) KPM Enterprises v/s The Commissioner, DGST and others passed in Writ Petition (C) No.16388 of 2022 by High Court of Delhi, (iv) M/s Ultra Steel v/s State of Madhya Pradesh and others passed in Writ Petition No.21659 of 2022 by High Court of Madhya Pradesh. 07. In response to the preliminary objection about the maintainability of writ petition for want of efficacious remedy of appeal, the learned counsel submits that there is no absolute bar in entertaining the writ petition as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Radha Krishan Industries v/s State of Himachal Pradesh & others in C.A. No.1151 of 2021 and the High Court of Bombay in the case of Saurabh Sahu v/s State of Maharashtra in Wr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he show cause notice as well as the order of cancellation of registration on merit, but the petitioner has not filed any documentary evidence to show that the allegations and the findings recorded by the competent authority are not correct. The petitioner had an opportunity to submit a reply along with all the documents before the respondent, within 30 days. The only explanation offered by the respondent is that he did not open the portal, which cannot be a justification for the non-filing of the reply. Even after the passing of the final order, the petitioner had 30 days to file an application for rectification. The petitioner has also failed to invoke the remedy of appeal within the time limit prescribed for filing an appeal. 10. So fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lf of the respondent, referred to herein above, are concerned, the question is not about the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, but the question is about the entertainability of the writ petition against the order of assessment by-passing the statutory remedy of appeal. There are serious disputes on facts as to whether the assessment order was passed on 20.03.2020 or 14.07.2020 (as alleged by the assessee). No valid reasons have been shown by the assessee to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal. This Court has consistently taken the view that when there is an alternate remedy available, judicial prudence demands that the court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under constitutional provisions....