ORDER:

PER THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

Heard Mr. Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Sapna Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr. B.Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2. We have also heard Mr. B.Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.3.

2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent cancelling the Goods and Service Tax (GST) registration of the petitioner as well as the order-in-appeal dated 17.08.2022 passed by the 1st respondent dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of cancellation of GST registration.

3. Petitioner before us is a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). It is engaged in the business of publishing Newspaper. It is a registered taxable person under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (briefly referred to hereinafter as the ‘CGST Act’) bearing registration No.36AAEHG2074C1ZP.

4. 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 02.09.2021 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why its GST registration should not be cancelled on the ground that petitioner had failed to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months. Petitioner filed a detailed objection on 03.10.2021. However, 2nd respondent did not consider the objection raised by the petitioner and passed the impugned order dated 29.10.2021 cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner though clarifying that such cancellation would not absolve the petitioner of its liability to pay GST for any period before or after the date of cancellation.

5. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.10.2021, petitioner preferred appeal before the 1st respondent. However, the appeal has been dismissed vide the order-in- appeal dated 17.08.2022. While dismissing the appeal, 1st respondent held as follows:

“7. As seen from the details of tax liability furnished by the appellant at the time of personal hearing, it is seen that the appellant is continuously in business. However, they are not filing the periodical returns and discharging their tax liability. Reasons submitted by the appellant before the appellate authority, at the time of personal hearing were not sufficient as they were collecting the taxes from their clients and not paying the same to the exchequer and failed to file the returns in time. Further, the cancellation of registration under section 29 (3) of the CGST Act, 2017 as amended, shall not affect the liability of the person to pay tax and other dues under this Act or to discharge any obligation under this Act or the rules made thereunder for any period prior to the date of cancellation whether or not such tax and other dues are determined before or after the date of cancellation. Therefore, it appears that until and unless registration was cancelled, the appellant has not filed the returns and discharged the tax liability in time with an intention to evade the payment of the same. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the orders of the Registration Cancellation Authority i.e., OA.”

6. Issue raised in this writ petition is no more res integra as identical challenge has been gone into by this Court in several writ petitions including in M/s. Chenna Krishnama Charyulu Karampudi v. Additional Commissioner (Appeals-1) in Writ Petition No.27071 of 2022, decided on 27.06.2022.

7. Following the above and by maintaining parity, we are of the view that it would be just and proper if respondent No.2 gives a fresh opportunity of hearing to the petitioner since the matter pertains to cancellation of GST registration adversely effecting its business operations.

8. Accordingly, we set aside the order-in-appeal dated 17.08.2022 and order dated 29.10.2021 and remand the matter back to the 2nd respondent who shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. During the hearing, it would be open to the petitioner to furnish the returns as provided under the statute.

9. This disposes of the Writ Petition. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

10. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.