M/S. Steel India vs The State Tax Officer
2023 Latest Caselaw 11033 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
    THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
                              &
        THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
 THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1945
                    WA NO. 1859 OF 2023
   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT WP(C) 29033/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF
                           KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

         M/S. STEEL INDIA
         IX/205, MAMPULLY, KANDASSANKADAVU, THRISSUR ,
         REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, BIJU
         CHETTUKULAM SURENDRAN., PIN - 680613

         BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENON
         MEERA V.MENON
         R.SREEJITH
         PARVATHY MENON
         K.KRISHNA


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE STATE TAX OFFICER
         TAX PAYER SERVICES CIRCLE, STATE GOODS & SERVICES
         TAX DEPARTMENT, NATTIKA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680004

    2    STATE OF KERALA
         REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT,
         GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

     THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.A.No.1859 of 2023

                                 -:2:-




                           JUDGMENT

Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.29033 of 2023 is the appellant

herein, aggrieved by the judgment dated 5.10.2023 of the learned

Single Judge in the writ petition.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this writ

appeal are as follows:

In the writ petition, the appellant herein had impugned Exts. P4

and P5 orders whereby its GST registration was cancelled inter alia

for the reason that (i) it had failed to demonstrate that it had been

conducting business in the premises declared before the authorities

and (ii) it had issued invoices/bills without supply of goods or services

in violation of the provisions of the Acts and Rules. It was the case of

the appellant before the writ court that while it had furnished Ext.P3

reply to Ext.P2 show cause notice that proposed to cancel its

registration, the respondents relied on a statement given by its

landlord that suggested that it had not been conducting any business W.A.No.1859 of 2023

in the tenanted premises from 2012 to May, 2017, to find against it

and cancel its registration.

3. The learned Single Judge who considered the matter found

that inasmuch as the appellant had not produced any material in

support of his contention that the business activities were actually

carried on from the address mentioned in the Registration Certificate,

the mere fact that the respondents had relied on a statement of the

landlord of the appellant could not be seen as vitiating the orders

impugned in the writ petition. The writ petition was therefore

dismissed without prejudice to the right of the appellant to prefer an

appeal against the impugned orders before the 1st appellate authority.

4. In this appeal before us, it is the submission of Sri.

Harisankar V. Menon, the learned counsel for the appellant that the

learned Single Judge erred in relegating the appellant to the

alternative remedy under circumstances where there was a violation

of natural justice occasioned by the respondents who passed the

orders impugned in the writ petition. In particular, it is pointed out

that while the said respondents relied upon the submission of the

landlord of the premises, no opportunity was extended to the

appellant to cross examine the landlord in order to test the veracity of W.A.No.1859 of 2023

the statement.

5. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned Government

Pleader Sri. Shamsudheen that the appellant had not produced any

evidence by way of tax invoice or otherwise to suggest that it had

been carrying on the business from the tenanted premises during the

relevant period and it is under these circumstances that the

respondents relied on the statement of the landlord, which also

suggested that the appellant had not been carrying on business from

the tenanted premises, to cancel the registration granted to the

appellant.

On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view

that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge does not call

for any interference. The appellant has an effective alternative

remedy against the orders impugned in the writ petition before the

appellate authority under the GST Act. We however, deem it

appropriate to clarify that, if the appellant prefers an appeal against

the orders impugned in the writ petition within two weeks from today,

then, the appellate authority shall consider the appeal on its merit,

inter alia by independently examining the evidence produced by the

appellant to demonstrate that it was actually doing business from the W.A.No.1859 of 2023

tenanted premises mentioned above. In that connection, the appellate

authority shall not be guided solely by the statements obtained from

the landlord who, we are given to understand, is in inimical terms

with the appellant. In other words, if there is independent evidence

produced by the appellant to demonstrate that it was conducting

business from the premises aforementioned, then that shall be taken

due note of by the appellate authority while adjudicating the appeal.

Save for this limited modification, the writ appeal is otherwise

dismissed.

Sd/-

DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

kp