The provisions of the GST statute cannot be read in a way that prevents any citizen or subject from engaging in trade and commerce, according to the Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad Bench. The division bench of Justice Mangesh M Patel and Justice SG Chapalgaonkar observed the same in the case of Rohit Enterprises Versus The Commissioner State GST Bhavan (Writ Petition No. 11833 Of 2022)
FACTS OF THE CASE :
The assessee/petitioner works in the fabrication sector. It is registered under both the 2017 Maharashtra State Goods and Services Tax Act and the 2017 Central Goods and Services Tax Act. His company received the registration certificate.
The petitioner claimed that GST returns for the period beginning in August 2021 could not be filed because he had undergone angioplasty and the company had experienced a financial setback as a result of the pandemic.
If a registered individual or entity fails to submit three consecutive returns, the proper offices may cancel registration pursuant to Section 29(2) of the GST Act.
The petitioner was given seven working days to provide an answer after the State Revenue Officer in Aurangabad issued a “show-cause” notice. The message specified that the petitioner’s registration was currently suspended. On March 3, 2022, the petitioner responded to the show cause notice. He asked for the notice to be revoked, citing the cause of the financial crisis. The registration was, however, revoked by the State Tax Officer as of August 21, 2021.
The petitioner asked for the registration’s cancellation to be overturned. The state tax officer responded by sending a show-cause letter for the application’s denial. The petitioner was required to submit the response together with any necessary supporting documentation, such as bank statements up to the date of the notification, a challan for tax, interest, and a late filing fee, within 7 days of receiving the notice. A hearing in the matter was slated for April 25, 2022. Finally, the petitioner’s plea for reversal of cancellation was denied by the state tax officer.
The petitioner claimed that he is a vendor for Bajaj Auto Limited and relies on fabrication for his livelihood. The pandemic scenario hindered the petitioner’s business operations, resulting in significant financial losses.
JUDGEMENT :
“Despite any flaws in the GST enactment plan, the constitutional promise must be upheld because it is unqualified and unambiguous. Contrary to the constitutional protection provided by Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the right to practice a trade or profession cannot be restricted. The state will lose money if the petitioner’s request to reinstate the registration is denied, and the GST regime’s ultimate purpose would be unsuccessful “Judge Mangesh M. Patel and Justice S.G. Chapalgaonkar’s division bench noted.
Upon granting the appeal, the court ruled that it is not in the government’s best interest to restrict the rights of entrepreneurs like the petitioner, even while considering the purpose of the provisions under the GST Act. The petitioner must be let to keep operating and bring in money for the state. The petitioner has said in front of us that they are prepared and willing to pay all of the fees as well as any applicable penalties and interest.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEW BY SREYA MARY.
