SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(AP) 1460

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. SESHA SAI, DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, JJ.
Jayapal Reddy Gudipati Kakinada Government General Hospital – Appellant
Versus
Goods and Services Tax Officer Jagannayakpur – Respondent
Writ Petition No.36794 of 2022
Decided on : 15-11-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY

Availability of appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, for persons aggrieved by decisions or orders passed under the Act.

Headnote:

Cancellation of Registration - Goods and Services Tax - Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - The petitioner, a diet contractor, challenged the cancellation of registration by the Goods and Services Tax Officer. The petitioner contended that the supplies made to Government General Hospitals are classifiable as Restaurant Services taxable at 5% under the GST Act. The petitioner also highlighted the delay in filing monthly returns due to non-receipt of bills from the government and non-payment for the services provided. The court disposed of the Writ Petition, allowing the petitioner to approach the appellate authority as per Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, within a week from the date of receipt of the order.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a diet contractor, challenged the cancellation of registration by the Goods and Services Tax Officer, citing delays in filing monthly returns and non-payment for services provided to Government General Hospitals.

Finding of the Court:

The court disposed of the Writ Petition, allowing the petitioner to approach the appellate authority as per Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, within a week from the date of receipt of the order.

Issues: Challenge to cancellation of registration under the CGST Act, 2017, due to delays in filing monthly returns and non-payment for services provided to Government General Hospitals.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the availability of the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, for persons aggrieved by decisions or orders passed under the Act.

Final Decision: The Writ Petition was disposed of, allowing the petitioner to approach the appellate authority as per Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, within a week from the date of receipt of the order.

ORDER :

A.V. Sesha Sai, J.

1. Heard Sri P. Karthik Ramana, Learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.C.D. Sekhar, learned Government Pleader for State of Andhra Pradesh for Respondent Nos.1 and 3, Sri N. Harinath, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India and Sri Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.4.

2. An order of cancellation of registration passed by the Goods and Services Tax Officer, Jagannayakpur-1st respondent herein, dated 01.02.2022 under the provisions of Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is under challenge in the present Writ Petition. According to the petitioner, he is a diet contractor, carrying on contracts with the Government General Hospitals for supply of food to the in-patients at the subsidized price fixed by the State Government. Preceded by a show-cause notice dated 06.12.2021, the first respondent herein issued the impugned cancellation order dated 01.02.2022. It is absolutely not in controversy that in response to the show-cause notice issued by the first respondent, the petitioner herein did not file any reply/explanation. However, at paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the following reasons are shown by the petitioner:

    “3. The Petitioner has entered into contract with the Government General Hospitals for supply of food to the in patients at the subsidized price fixed by the State Government and such supplies are classifiable as Restaurant Services taxable @ 5% under the GST Act. Accordingly, the Petitioner has been reporting the value of supplies through the monthly returns and discharging the tax liability since December, 2018. The Petitioner did not file monthly Returns in Form GSTR-3B for the months from May-2021 to January-2022 since it did not receive bills from the Government in time. The petitioner was allotted contract by the State Government for supply of diet to the COVID-19 patients who were under quarantine in isolation wards in the Government General Hospitals, Kurnool and Kakinada. The Petitioner has executed the contracts by borrowing money by way of hand loans and from financial institutions on interest and raised bills on the Government General Hospital, Kurnool for an amount of Rs.2,80,93,215 for the period from October, 2020 to December, 2021. The bills were accepted but not paid by the Hospital in spite of repeated requests. The petitioner has approached this Hon’ble High Court vide Writ Petition No.16887 of 2022 and on the directions of this Hon’ble High Court by the order dated 20.7.2022 (Ex.P-1), the respondents have disbursed the amount in the month of August, 2022. Similarly for the food supplied to the Covid patients in the Government General Hospital, Kakinada an amount of Rs.2,79,12,042/- for the period from May, 2021 to March, 2022 is paid to the Petitioner in August, 2022 as per the Ref. Coordn. 6/100/2922, dated 16.08.2022 of the District Collector, Kakinada (Ex.P-2).

4. In these circumstances, the Petitioner could not file the Returns for the tax periods from May, 2021 to January, 2022 within the prescribed time. The GST network is so designed that a taxable person will be able to file monthly Returns in Form GSTR-3B only if he is prepared to discharge the tax liability along with interest, if any generated. The GST network does not allow to file the returns declaring the tax liability and discharge the liability along with interest at a later date. Further, until the prior months returns are filed, the filing of Returns for the subsequent period does not arise.”

3. It is also pertinent to extract paragraph 7 of the Affidavit:

    “The Petitioner could borrow money in July, 2022 and could not get the returns filed by his Accountant for the tax periods from May, 2021 to January, 2022 by paying tax, interest and late fee of a sum of Rs.7,80,902/- Statement of tax paid for these months is filed as Ex.P-5. However, it could not file the returns for the months from February, 2022 onwards as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top