The Madras High Court (HC) gave time for additional submissions in response to the delay in the suit to revoke the GST registration.
The writ petitioner-dealer/registrant qua GST registration has at least three remedies under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [‘GST Act’] and its accompanying Regulations, known as the ‘Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017’. It should be noted that the Regulations are subordinate legislation enacted by the Government in accordance with Section 164 of the GST act read with section 166 of the GST Act.
According to the submission, the three remedies are as follows: a) a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, b) an application for revocation of the impugned order under Section 30 of the GST Act read with Rule 23 of the GST Rules, and c) an application for registration a new under Section 22 of the GST Act.
The three-month mandated term and one-month condonable period qua Section 107 appeal have already passed since the impugned order, dated 04.01.2022, was served on the writ petitioner on the same day (and uploaded in the portal).
It was argued that since he is a government contractor and changing the Registration Number is challenging, making a new application under Section 22 may be problematic.
The Goods and Services Tax Act’s own Section 30 refers to restrictions, so whether subordinate law can expand the limitation in the parent legislation becomes relevant. In this regard, Section 166 of the parent Act is significant since it mandates the presence of every subsidiary legislation created in accordance with Section 164 in both chambers of Parliament.
Similar to other subordinate laws that do not have the same statutory requirement, or the statutory requirement placed before both houses of Parliament, such subordinate laws that are brought before both houses of parliament are given a different footing and are placed in a distinct basket.
Read Also: No GSTIN Cancellation Order Issued by Dept, Suspension Revoked
Both parties ask for a brief accommodation to make more comments along these lines, Judge M. Sundar remarked. Request granted. Mr C. Harsha Raj, Additional Government Pleader (Tax), who emphasized Section 30 of the parent law point mentioned above, was granted an audience. In order to provide the Court with further clarity, the attorney is allowed to participate in the next listing with Mr Pramodkumar Chopda.
| Case Title | M/s.Annai construction Vs Superintendent |
| Citation | W.P.No.487 of 2023 |
| Date | 09.01.2023 |
| Counsel For Appellant | G. NATARAJAN, S.Sridevi, K.Aarthy, S.Sridevi |
| Counsel For Respondent | MR. PROMOD KUMAR CHOPDRA |
| Madras HC | Read Order |
