Mr.Pandidorai Sethupathi Raja vs The Superintendent Of Central Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 16.11.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

W.P.Nos.14879, 26088, 18017, 25637, 25666, 25950, 26653, 27033, 27189, 27759, 28151, 30227, 27552, & 30081 of 2022 and W.P.Nos.4522, 4686 & 4693 of 2020 & W.P.Nos.19334, 25964, 26608, 26623, 26717, 27381, 27768, 27816, 27854, 28133, 28206, 28415, 28600, 29113, 29120, 29172, 29438, 29745, 29755, 30046, 30075, 30108, 30241, 30279, 30356, 30144 & 30283 of 2022

WMP Nos.14082, 25158, 17339, 17340, 24630, 24633, 24684, 25707, 25709, 26253, 27051, 29658, 29659, 26800, 29499 & 29501 of 2022 WMP.Nos.5365, 5369, 5537, 5541, 5544 & 5547 of 2020 & WMP.Nos.18606, 18608, 25661, 25674, 25776, 26589, 26591, 27059, 27060, 27148, 27420, 27499, 27500, 27887, 28410, 28413, 28399, 28401, 28456, 28771, 28773, 29140, 29157, 29489, 29491, 29537, 29538, 29669, 29671, 29710, 29711, 29716 & 29718 of 2022

WP.No.14879 of 2022:

Mr.Pandidorai Sethupathi Raja ... Petitioner Vs

The Superintendent of Central Tax, Nungambakkam Zone IV, Chennai Central, Range 1, Guindy MHU Complex, 692, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035. ... Respondent

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records

relating to the impugned order Reference Number ZA3311190207012 dated

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

1 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

06.11.2019 passed by the Respondent, quash the same and direct the

Respondent to pass orders after considering the returns filed by the Petitioner

and submissions made by the Petitioner, without insisting for late fee.

Case Nos. For Petitioners For Respondents WP.Nos.14879 Mr.T.R.Ramesh Mr.Pramod Kumar & 27759 of Chopda, 2022 Senior Standing Counsel WP.No.26088 Mr.Ramanathan Mr.Mohanamurali, of 2022 For Mr.K.Soundara Rajan Senior Panel Counsel WP.No.18017 Mr.D.Vijayakumar Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, of 2022 Senior Standing Counsel WP.No.25637 No Appearance Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, of 2022 Senior Standing Counsel WP.Nos.25666 Mr.K.M.Malarmannan Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, & 27552 of Senior Standing Counsel 2022 WP.No.25950 Mr.B.Raveendran Mr.T.Ramesh Kutty, of 2022 Senior Standing Counsel WP.No.26653 Mr.M.R.Jothimanian Mr.Sai Srujan Tayi, of 2022 Senior Panel Counsel WP.No.27033 No Appearance Mr.Sai Srujan Tayi, of 2022 Senior Panel Counsel WP.No.27189 Mr.Ramanathan Mr.Pramod Kumar of 2022 For Mr.R.Senniappan Chopda, Senior Standing Counsel WP.No.28151 Mr.A.Ganapatheeswaran Mr.Sai Srujan Tayi, of 2022 Senior Panel Counsel WP.No.30227 Mr.S.Ramanan Mr.Sai Srujan Tayi, of 2022 Senior Panel Counsel

WP.No.30081 Mr.N.Murali Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, of 2022 Senior Standing Counsel W.P.No.4522 of Mr.Adithiya Reddy Mr.TNC.Kaushik 2020 Additional Government Pleader W.P.No.30356 Mr.P.Muthamizh Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

of 2022 Selvakumar Government Advocate W.P.No.30144 Mr.P.Suresh Babu Ms.Amirtha Dinakaran of 2022 Government Advocate W.P.Nos.4686 Ms.Sri Harini Mr.TNC.Kaushik and 4693 of for Mr.Adithiya Reddy Additional Government 2020 Pleader W.P.No.19334 Mr.S.Ramanan Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran of 2022 Government Advocate W.P.No.25964 Mr.S.Shunmuga Raja Mr.TNC.Kaushik of 2022 Additional Government Pleader W.P.No.26608 Mr.B.Raveendran Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran of 2022 Government Advocate W.P.No.26623 Mr.Murugesh Kasivel Mr.C.Harsha Raj of 2022 Additional Government Pleader W.P.No.26717 Mr.B.Raveendran Mr.C.Harsha Raj of 2022 Additional Government Pleader W.P.No.27381 No appearance Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran of 2022 Government Advocate W.P.No.27768 Mr.C.Thiagarajan Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran of 2022 Government Advocate W.P.No.27816 Mr.B.Raveendran Mr.TNC.Kaushik of 2022 Additional Government Pleader W.P.No.27854 Mr.B.Raveendran Mr.C.Harsha Raj of 2022 Additional Government Pleader W.P.No.28133 Mr.G.Saravanabhavan Mr.TNC.Kaushik of 2022 Additional Government Pleader W.P.No.28206 Mr.R.Thamaraiselvan Mr.TNC.Kaushik of 2022 Additional Government Pleader W.P.No.28415 Mr.R.Sivakumar Mr.C.Harsha Raj of 2022 Additional Government Pleader W.P.No.28600 Mr.P.Sivagaminathan Mr.TNC.Kaushik of 2022 Additional Government https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Pleader

3 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

W.P.No.29113 Mr.N.Murali Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran of 2022 Government Advocate W.P.No.29172 Mr.S.Rajasekar Mr.TNC.Kaushik of 2022 Additional Government Pleader W.P.No.29120 Mr.N.Murali Mr.C.Harsha Raj of 2022 Additional Government Pleader W.P.No.29438 Mr.N.Murali Mr.TNC.Kaushik of 2022 Additional Government Pleader W.P.No.29745 Mr.Anandh.S Mr.TNC.Kaushik of 2022 Additional Government Pleader W.P.No.29755 Mr.J.Prasannakumar Mr.TNC.Kaushik of 2022 Additional Government Pleader W.P.No.30046 Mr.P.Suresh Babu Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran of 2022 Government Advocate W.P.No.30075 No appearance Mr.C.Harsha Raj of 2022 Additional Government Pleader W.P.No.30108 Mr.N.Murali Mr.TNC.Kaushik of 2022 Additional Government Pleader W.P.No.30241 Mr.N.Murali Mr.C.Harsha Raj of 2022 Additional Government Pleader W.P.Nos.30279 Mr.N.Murali Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran & 30283 of Government Advocate 2022

COMMON ORDER

This order, passed in a batch of 44 writ petitions is a sequel to several

earlier orders passed in other batches of writ petitions wherein the cause of

action is similar/identical to that in the present writ petitions. All petitioners

challenge either orders passed by the Central/State Commercial Tax Authorities https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 or Tamil

Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST/TNGST) or orders of the

appellate authorities rejecting appeals filed by them challenging orders

cancelling registration on the ground that appeals have been filed belatedly.

2. Benches of this Court have earlier taken a view that, as a matter of

leniency, similarly, though not equally placed petitioners, must be permitted to

have the benefit of restoration of cancellation upon the imposition of certain

conditions. However, the saga continues and as a matter of fact, writ petitions

are being filed continuously even thereafter.

3. I had, in M.Mallika Mahal vs. The Commissioner of Central GST,

(WP.Nos.10663 of 2022 and batch order dated 17.08.2022) taken the view,

substantially similar to that taken by a learned Single Judge of this Court in

WP.Nos.25048 of 2021 and batch dated 31.01.2022, to the effect that the

petitioners may be granted the benefit of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in

In Re: Cognizance for extension of limitation, Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.

3 of 2020 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, taking note of the difficulties

posed by the pandemic had extended the limitation for filing of statutory

appeal/statutory and revisional remedies from time to time.

4. The last of the extensions was on 28.02.2022 and had extended the

time for availing of appellate/revisional remedies by a period of 90 days. This

period expired on 29.05.2022. In such circumstances, this Court endorses, and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

will accede to the submission of learned Standing Counsel for the Central and

State GST Departments to the effect that the benefit of restoration of

registration granted by this Court cannot be indefinitely available to the

petitioners. The Central GST Authorities have filed a counter dated Nil,

November, 2022 to aforesaid effect, and the same has been adopted by the State

GST Authorities in their counter dated 16.11.2022.

5. It is a settled position that where statutory revisional/appellate

remedies set out a certain limitation for filing of the remedy concerned, the

authorities under the statute cannot traverse beyond the prescribed period. The

question as to whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution will do so, has been deliberated by the Hon'ble Supreme

and High Courts and the position obtaining in this regard is, as a norm, in the

negative.

6. However, jurisdiction under Article 226 is wide and empowers the

Court to do substantial justice, over and beyond the ken of a statutory authority.

Exceptions may be thus be carved out from the norm. Courts have thus

proceeded to examine the facts and circumstances leading to the delay in

availing the statutory remedy. If, in the opinion of the Court, the reasons set out

for the delay are well founded, discretion may well be exercised in favour of

the assessee concerned, and the delay condoned.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

6 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

7. This position has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health

Care Limited, [C.A.No.2413 of 2020 dated 06.05.2020]. I have, in Keshav Ply

N Laminates Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST),W.P.Nos.15679 of 2020

dated 03.03.2021, where assessments under the commercial tax statues were

assailed, had occasion to consider and decide the same issue and have stated

thus:

10. Courts have, pan India, been taking differing stands with regard to the legal proposition as to whether Writ Petitions challenging orders of assessment where the concerned Statute provides for the remedy of appeal and sets out fixed time frames for filing of appeal and condonation of delay if any, in filing of the same, may be entertained.

11. One school of thought is that no Writ Petition may be entertained in the above circumstances, as the period of limitation fixed by Statute is sans any flexibility and rigid, constituting an absolute bar.

12. Yet another school of thought is that the power vested in a Constitutional Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is wide and Courts can consider the circumstances that have led to delay in challenging orders of assessment, even beyond the periods of limitation prescribed under statute.

13. The trigger for the present discussion is the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (Ct) LTU vs. M/s.Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited [(2020 (36) GSTL 305 (SC)], wherein this issue arose. In that case, the decision of the High Court at Telangana and Andhra Pradesh was challenged and the issue framed was whether the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ought to have entertained a challenge to the assessment order, seeing as the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

7 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

statutory remedy of appeal against that order stood foreclosed by the law of limitation. The petitioner in that case had, for the period 2013-14, suffered assessment dated 21.06.2017 as against which a belated statutory appeal had been filed that was dismissed on 25.10.2018 as being barred by limitation and also since sufficient cause had not been made out for condonation of the delay.

14. A writ petition was filed challenging the order of assessment (there was no challenge to the appellate order). This writ petition was entertained by the High Court noticing that statutory pre-deposit had been effected and the employee in charge of tax matters had been dismissed leading to the delay in filing of appeal. That petitioner was put to terms. Upon compliance with the terms imposed, the matter was heard and the writ petition came to be allowed quashing the order of assessment and relegating the matter to the assessing authority to be redone afresh after hearing the petitioner. It is thus that the revenue carried the matter in appeal to the Supreme Court arguing that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction and committed a manifest error in admitting a writ petition beyond the period of limitation set out in the concerned statute. A plethora of case law on this issue was examined by the Supreme Court.

15. The cases discussed are, Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.)); K.S. Rashid & Son v. Income Tax Investigation Commission (AIR 1954 SC 207); Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes (AIR 1964 SC 1419); Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad now Zila Parishad (AIR 1969 SC 556); Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited ((2017) 5 SCC 42); Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa ((1983) 2 SCC 433. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission ((2010) 5 SCC 23); ITC Ltd. v.

Union of India (1998 (101) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.)); Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India ((2011) 14 SCC 337); Raja Mechanical Co. (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner (2013 (29) S.T.R. 81 (S.C.)) = (2012 (279) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.)); Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner (2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.)); State v. Mushtaq Ahmad ((2016) 1 SCC 315); Suryachakra Power Corporation Limited v. Electricity Department ((2016) 16 SCC 152); Commissioner v. Hongo India (P) Ltd. (2009 (236) E.L.T. 417 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

8 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

(S.C.)); Electronics Corporation of India Limited v. Union of India (2018 (361) E.L.T. 22 (A.P.)); Panoli Intermediate (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2015 (326) E.L.T. 9 532 (Guj.)); Phoenix Plasts Company v. Commissioner (2013 (298) E.L.T. 481 (Kar.)).

16. At para 12 the Bench states that indubitably, the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution are wide, but certainly no wider than the plenary powers bestowed to the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution that constituted a conglomeration and repository of the entire judicial power under the Constitution, enabling the Supreme Court to do complete and total justice. Even so, the Court says the power under Article 142 must be exercised bearing in mind legislative intent and with a view not to render the statutory provision otiose.

17. At para 14 they state ‘A priori, we have no hesitation in taking the view that what this Court cannot do in exercise of its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, it is unfathomable as to how the High Court can take a different approach in the matter in (2016) 1 SCC 315 reference to Article 226 of the Constitution. The principle underlying the rejection of such argument by this Court would apply on all fours to the exercise of power by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution’.

18. At para 15 they state that the scope of jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 cannot be curtailed by the limitation prescribed under an statute. Thus while challenges to assessment may be considered on several grounds such as, the order having been passed by an Officer without jurisdiction, in flagrant disregard of law or procedure, the violation of principles of natural justice or the bar of limitation, if the petitioner has missed the bus, as regards the statutory limitation prescribed under the statute, such a challenge cannot be entertained by the High Court ‘as a matter of course’.

19. The wide powers with which the High Court is invested must not be exercised in such a way that are inconsistent with legislative intent prescribing a rigid limitation under statute. In conclusion, the Bench reverses the decision of the High Court and allows the writ appeals saying that no case have been made out https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

9 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

either before the High Court, and no finding has been recorded by the High Court in regard to its decision for entertaining the writ petition beyond the period of statutory limitation.

20. Article 226 of the Constitution of India is thus, elastic enough to accommodate challenges to proceedings beyond the period provided under limitation, although such discretion has to be exercised very sparingly and the situation causing the delay examined closely and minutely.

21. This then, is the basis upon which I propose to dispose this batch of Writ Petitions. I have considered the circumstances leading to the delayed challenge to the impugned orders of assessment in each case, individually. In doing so, I envisage two road blocks that the petitioners would have to cross. The first one relates to the delay occasioned in approaching this Court beyond the period of statutory limitation and explanation thereto. In my view, the explanation offered at this stage, would have to comprise of purely personal/human/medical reasons. Failure to convince the court at this stage would result in the writ petition being dismissed in limine.

22. If the petitioner crosses the first barrier, the Writ Petition should be established to be maintainable applying settled parameters, notwithstanding the availability of an alternate remedy. If the petitioner is successful, the Court might be persuaded to consider the challenge, permitting it to either file a belated appeal without reference to limitation or, depending on the merits of the matter, consider interference under Article 226 in the order itself

8. The discussion as above is reiterated in the present matter as well. The

only difference between the two batches of writ petitions is that in those cases,

the challenge was to assessment and appellate orders where the appeals had

been dismissed on the question of delay, and the petitioners in the present batch

challenge orders of cancellation of registration where no appeals have been

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

10 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

filed or appeals have been filed belatedly and rejected by the authority on the

ground of limitation.

9.In a substantial number of Writ Petitions, the petitioners have filed

appeals that are significantly delayed before the appellate authority. In most of

the cases, they have taken advantage of the extension of time that had been

granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in filing appeals in the case of In Re:

Cognizance and even thereafter, in some cases, there have been delays. I now

proceed to apply the approach as taken in the case of Keshav Ply N Laminates

and decide each writ petition, on the strength or otherwise of the specific case.

Matters coming under the CGST Act

W.P.No.25950 of 2022:

10.The appeal filed by the petitioner challenging order of cancellation of

registration has been rejected as time barred by four days. The date of

cancellation of registration is 08.02.2022 and the appeal ought to have been

filed on or before 12.08.2022 after filing of returns for 6 months along with tax

and interest.

11.Learned Standing Counsel, while accepting the position that the tax

has been paid, would submit that interest has not been paid. No clarity is

forthcoming in this regard from the learned counsel for the petitioner. That

apart, the explanation given by the petitioner in regard to the delay of filing of

appeal, which is 4 days beyond the statutory time limit is that the certified copy https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

11 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

of order dated 13.04.2022 passed by R2 rejecting the application seeking

revocation of cancellation, has been received belatedly, but there is no proof

placed on file in this regard.

12. However, learned Standing Counsel does not have any serious

objection to the appellate authority entertaining the appeal, bearing in mind the

quantum of delay of 4 days only. In light of the aforesaid, the appeal stands

restored to the file of the appellate authority/R1, who shall take the appeal on

file without reference to limitation, but ensuring compliance with all other

statutory conditions, and, if found maintainable on all other aspects, shall

dispose the same expeditiously, and in accordance with law.

13.This Writ Petition is dismissed, though with liberty as above. No

costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

W.P.No.26653 of 2022:

14. The appeal has been filed before the first appellate authority as

against the cancellation of registration, which is dated 25.01.2021, with a delay

of 87 days. The justification set out for the delay of 87 days in filing of appeal

is that the business of the petitioner was paralysed.

15. In light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (supra) and order of this

Court in M/S.Kesaav Ply N Laminates (supra), the explanation set forth, does

not, in the considered view of the Court, merit acceptance. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

12 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

16.This Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

W.P.No.27033 of 2022:

17.The petitioner is called absent. In any event, the appeal has been filed

before the first appellate authority with a delay of 38 days and there is no

reason set out in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition justifying the

said delay.

18. In light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (supra) and order of this

Court in M/S.Kesaav Ply N Laminates (supra), this Writ Petition is dismissed.

No costs.

W.P.No.28151 of 2022:

19.The appeal has been filed challenging an order of cancellation of

registration, dated 10.11.2020, with a delay of 11 days before the appellate

authority who has rejected the same vide order dated 14.07.2022.

20.The explanation set out in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ

Petition is hardship, mental agony and financial loss that the petitioner has

faced on account of the COVID -19 pandemic.

21.For the reasons as aforesaid, seeing as there is no serious objection

put forth by the learned standing counsel to the appellate authority entertaining

the appeal, and bearing in mind the quantum of delay of 11 days only, the

appeal stands restored to the file of the appellate authority/R2. R2 shall take the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

13 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

appeal on file without reference to limitation, but ensuring compliance with all

other statutory conditions, if any, and if found maintainable on all other

aspects, dispose the same expeditiously, and in accordance with law.

22.This Writ Petition is dismissed, though with liberty as above. No

costs.

W.P.No.26088 of 2022:

23.The appeal has been filed challenging order of cancellation of

registration, which is dated 17.03.2022, with a delay of 2 days before the

appellate authority who has rejected the same vide order dated 25.08.2022.

24.The explanation set out in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ

Petition is hardship, mental agony and financial loss that the petitioner has

faced on account of the COVID -19 pandemic.

25.For the reasons as aforesaid, seeing as there is no serious objection

put forth by the learned standing counsel to the appellate authority entertaining

the appeal, and bearing in mind the quantum of delay of 2 days only, the appeal

stands restored to the file of the appellate authority/R1, who shall take the

appeal on file without reference to limitation, but ensuring compliance with all

other statutory conditions, if any. If found maintainable on all other aspects, R2

shall dispose the appeal expeditiously, and in accordance with law.

26.This Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty as above. No costs.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

14 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

W.P.No.14879 of 2022:

27.Mr.Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the

respondent would not contest this Writ Petition based on written instructions of

the Assessing Authority dated 15.11.2022 to the effect that the petitioner has

filed GSTR 3B returns upto November, 2019 along with late fee.

28.That apart, the petitioner is stated to be engaged in the business of

providing security services and the liability to goods and services tax is under

reverse charge mechanism. Since outward supplies attract nil rate of tax, there

is no requirement for payment of interest as well.

29.In light of the above, there is a direction to R1 to restore the

registration in order to enable the portal to receive returns filed by the

petitioner.

30.This Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

W.P.No.18017 of 2022:

31.The date of cancellation of registration is 09.11.2020. No doubt,

limitation for availing remedial action in this regard, was extended by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of In Re: Cognizance (supra). By order

dated 28.02.2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court extended the period for filing of

appeal by 90 days, within which period suitable action seeking remedy ought to

have been pursued before the authorities.

32.The period of protection, of 90 days, expired on 29.05.2022. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

15 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

However, the present Writ Petition has been filed only on 11.07.2022, and no

explanation is set forth for the intervening delay. Hence, this Writ Petition is

dismissed. No costs.

W.P.No.25666 of 2022:

33.The petitioner has challenged an order dated 09.02.2022, which is the

effective date of cancellation of registration. As against the same, no appeal has

been filed by the petitioner, and the present Writ Petition has come to be filed

on 19.09.2022. No reasons have been assigned in the affidavit, except to state

that the order was not served through registered post or substituted service

other than by uploading upon the portal.

34.The case of the revenue is that the uploading of the order upon the

portal would tantamount to proper service under Section 169(d) of the Central

Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

35. Section 169 reads as follows:

169. Service of notice in certain circumstances.

(1) Any decision, order, summons, notice or other communication under this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be served by any one of the following methods, namely:— by giving or tendering it directly or by a messenger including a courier to the addressee or the taxable person or to his manager or authorised representative or an advocate or a tax practitioner holding authority to appear in the proceedings on behalf of the taxable person or to a person regularly employed by him in connection with the business, or to any adult member of family residing with the taxable person; or by registered post or speed post or courier with acknowledgement due, to the person for whom it is intended or his https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

16 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

authorised representative, if any, at his last known place of business or residence; or by sending a communication to his e-mail address provided at the time of registration or as amended from time to time; or by making it available on the common portal; or by publication in a newspaper circulating in the locality in which the taxable person or the person to whom it is issued is last known to have resided, carried on business or personally worked for gain; or if none of the modes aforesaid is practicable, by affixing it in some conspicuous place at his last known place of business or residence and if such mode is not practicable for any reason, then by affixing a copy thereof on the notice board of the office of the concerned officer or authority who or which passed such decision or order or issued such summons or notice.

(2) Every decision, order, summons, notice or any communication shall be deemed to have been served on the date on which it is tendered or published or a copy thereof is affixed in the manner provided in sub-section (1).

(3) When such decision, order, summons, notice or any communication is sent by registered post or speed post, it shall be deemed to have been received by the addressee at the expiry of the period normally taken by such post in transit unless the contrary is proved.

36.This is countered by the petitioner by drawing attention to Section

169(2), which deploys the terms ‘tendered’ ‘published’ or ‘affixed’. Thus,

according to petitioner, the absence of the term ‘uploaded’ as a mode of

service, is conscious, and should not be taken to be proper service.

37. I find no merit in this argument. In my view, making an order

available on the common portal would tantamount to ‘tendering’ of that order

to the recipient. That apart, I am also unable to ascribe any conscious intention

on the part of the Legislature to exclude uploading as one of the modes of

service. This argument is rejected.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

17 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

38.There is yet another aspect to the matter. The Income Tax Act 1961

permits uploading of orders upon the portal, or on the web application, and

construes the same as a proper method of service. However that statute, in

Explanations (r) to (u) of Section 144B thereof, contains a requirement that the

official concerned, issue an alert either to the registered e-mail of the assessee

or by way of SMS to the registered mobile number of the assessee, to bring to

the notice of the assessee that such order/communication has been uploaded.

Such a facility is not available under the GST Act.

39.The explanation put forth by the revenue in this regard, is that an

assessee under the provisions of the Goods and Services Tax Act enactments is

under a statutory obligation to file a return on monthly basis and hence is

expected to visit the portal once a month for this purpose. The necessity for an

alert thus stands obviated, for this reason.

40. I find this explanation acceptable and hence conclude that uploading

of orders upon the common portal constitutes proper mode of service. The

order in the present case has been uploaded on 09.02.2022 and the present

challenge laid on 19.09.2022, is beyond the period of limitation.

41. In light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (supra) and an order of this

Court in M/S.Kesaav Ply N Laminates (supra), this Writ Petition is dismissed.

No costs.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

18 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

W.P.No.25637 of 2022:

42. The petitioner is called absent. The petitioner has challenged an

order dated 08.03.2022, which is the effective date of cancellation of

registration. No statutory appeal has been filed by the petitioner, who has

proceeded to file the Writ Petition on 12.09.2022. No explanation/justification

has been set forth in the affidavit, except to state that the order was not served

through registered post or any other mode of substituted service, other than

uploaded on the portal.

43.I have, in W.P.No.25666 of 2022, decided the above issue against the

assessee (paragraphs 33 to 41 above) and the same order is taken to be passed

in this Writ Petition as well. This Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

W.P.No.27552 of 2022:

44.The petitioner has challenged an order dated 05.04.2022, which is the

effective date of cancellation of registration. No statutory appeal has been filed

by the petitioner, who has proceeded to approach this Court by way of Writ

Petition on 12.10.2022. No explanation/justification for the delay has been set

forth except to state that the order was not served through registered post or any

other mode of substituted service other than uploaded on the portal.

45.I have, in W.P.No.25666 of 2022, decided the above issue against the

assessee (paragraphs 33 to 41 above) and the same order is taken to be passed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

19 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

in this Writ Petition as well. This Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

W.P.No.30081 of 2022:

46.The order of cancellation is dated 08.06.2022 and the period of 120

days, which includes a period of 30 days that may be condoned, expires on

06.10.2022. This Writ Petition has been filed on 07.11.2022 with a delay of 31

days. The entirety of the tax and interest is stated to have been admittedly

remitted.

47.Learned Standing Counsel does not have any serious objection to the

appellate authority entertaining the appeal, bearing in mind the quantum of

delay of 31 days only.

48.In light of the above, the petitioner is permitted to move the appellate

authority within a period of four (4) weeks from date of receipt of this order.

Appeal, if filed within the time frame as aforesaid, will be taken on file by the

appellate authority without reference to limitation, but ensuring compliance

with other statutory conditions, if any. If found maintainable on all other

aspects, the appeal shall be disposed expeditiously by the authority, and in

accordance with law.

49.This Writ Petition is dismissed, though with liberty as above. No

costs.

W.P.No.30227 of 2022:

50.The petitioner has challenged an order dated 16.01.2022, which is the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

20 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

effective date of cancellation of registration. As against the same, remedy of

statutory appeal has not been availed and instead, a Writ Petition filed on

11.11.2022. The reasons set forth in explaining the delay are in general terms,

being financial difficulty. In the considered view of the Court the explanation

does not merit acceptance.

51.This Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

W.P.No.27189 of 2022:

52.The cancellation of registration in this case is dated 07.03.2022 and

the present Writ Petition has been filed on 23.09.2022. However, the petitioner

has filed a revocation application before R2, along with an application seeking

condonation of delay, within the condonable period. The dues have been

remitted on 17.06.2022. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for revocation of the

impugned order of cancellation on the ground that the statutory application for

revocation is pending before R2.

53.In such circumstances, let R2 pass an order upon the revocation

application filed on 29.04.2022. Needless to say, a decision on delay, if any, in

filing the application for condonation shall be taken by the authority, in

accordance with law.

54. This writ Petition is disposed as above. No costs.

W.P.No.27759 of 2022:

55.The petitioner has challenged order dated 12.03.2022, which is the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

21 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

effective date of cancellation of registration. As against the same, no appeal has

been filed by the petitioner, who has straight away filed this Writ Petition on

13.10.2022. No reasons have been assigned in the writ affidavit explaining the

delay, except to state that the order was not served through registered post or

any other mode of substituted service other than uploading upon the portal.

Hence, the petitioner was unable to move the appellate authorities within the

period of limitation.

56.I have, in W.P.No.25666 of 2022, decided the above issue against the

assessee (paragraphs 33 to 41 above) and the same order is taken to be passed

in this Writ Petition as well. This Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

Matters coming under the SGST Act

W.P.No.30356 of 2022:

57.The petitioner has challenged an order in first appeal. Normally, the

Writ Petition would have been maintainable seeing as there is no Tribunal

constituted in terms of the provisions of Section 112 of the Tamil Nadu Goods

and Services Tax Act, 2017. However, the reason for rejection of the statutory

appeal is that the appeal had been preferred beyond the statutory period of

condonation as the authority is not empowered under the Statute to condone

delay beyond a period of 90 + 30 days. No explanation is set out for filing the

appeal belatedly.

58.That apart, the impugned order is dated 02.11.2022 and the present https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

22 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

Writ Petition has been filed on 10.11.2022.

59.In light of the discussion as above, there is no merit in this Writ

Petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.

W.P.No.30144 of 2022:

60. The order of cancellation of registration is dated 02.05.2022, as

against which, either application for revocation ought to have been filed within

30 days, on or before 02.06.2022, or appeal within 120 days (including 30 days

of extended period), on or before 02.09.2022. The appeal has been filed on

06.10.2022 and the same has been rejected on 18.10.2022 for reason that the

same had been filed beyond the statutory period of limitation.

61. The explanation for the delay as set out in grounds (iii) of the writ

affidavit, is the ill health of the petitioner. In such circumstances, there is,

fairly, no serious objection to the condonation of delay, put forth by the State

counsel, as well. Thus, the appeal is restored to the file of the appellate

authority, who shall hear the same on merits and pass orders expeditiously, and

in accordance with law.

62. The impugned order is set aside and this Writ Petition is allowed. No

costs.

W.P.No.4522 of 2020:

63. The order of cancellation of registration is dated 30.09.2018. To be

noted, the petitioner had availed both statutory remedies of revocation of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

23 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

cancellation of registration as well as appellate remedy. The application for

revocation of cancellation of registration came to be rejected on 12.04.2019.

The petitioner has challenged the cancellation of registration by way of appeal

filed on 09.12.2019, whereas, the limitation under Section 107 of the Act

expired on 31.01.2019. The appeal thus came to be rejected on 11.12.2019 on

the ground that the same has been beyond the period of statutory limitation.

64. The reasons for delay as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the

Writ Petition is that the Accountant had left the organization. The petitioner

also states that notices were sent to the Consultant’s e-mail ID and hence the

petitioner was not aware of the same.

65. This Court is unable to accept these reasons, since the petitioner has,

in fact, filed revocation application on 01.04.2019 and thus was well aware of

the cancellation of registration in April, 2019 itself. Thus, nothing prevented

the petitioner from taking timely action in this regard. The reasons set out are

found to be contrary to the sequence of dates and events that have transpired in

this matter.

66. In light of the aforesaid, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

W.P.Nos.4686 and 4693 of 2020:

67. Mr.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate submits that the

registration of the petitioner has been restored.

68. Recording the aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside and these https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

24 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

Writ Petitions are allowed. No costs.

W.P.No.19334 of 2022:

69. The order of cancellation is dated 07.08.2019 and the present Writ

Petition has been filed on 22.07.2022 without assigning any reason for the

intervening delay. I thus find no justification to intervene in the impugned

order and the same is confirmed.

70. This Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

W.P.No.25964 of 2022:

71. The order of cancellation is dated 21.03.2022, as against which

appeal was filed on 20.07.2022 with a delay of 16 days. However, the said

appeal has been rejected as being beyond the statutory period of limitation.

72. The petitioner has furnished an explanation for the delay that had

been occasioned at paragraph 3 of the affidavit being Covid – 19 pandemic.

This Court is persuaded to accept the explanation tendered.

73. In such circumstances, and there being no serious objection by the

learned counsel for the respondent for the relief sought, the appeal is restored to

the file of the appellate authority, who shall proceed to hear the same on merits

and pass orders expeditiously, and in accordance with law.

74. The impugned order is set aside and this Writ Petition is allowed. No

costs.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

25 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

W.P.No.26608 of 2022:

75. The order of cancellation is dated 28.11.2019 and the present Writ

Petition has been filed on 27.09.2022 without assigning any justifiable reason

for the intervening delay except to state that they have faced difficulties on

account of the COVID -19 pandemic, which in the considered view of the

Court does not merit acceptance. I thus find no justification to intervene in the

impugned order and the same is confirmed.

76. This Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

W.P.No.26623 of 2022:

77. The order of cancellation is dated 29.03.2022 and the present Writ

Petition has been filed on 26.09.2022. The only reason assigned is that the

part-time accountant had not filed the returns, which in the considered view of

the Court does not merit acceptance. I thus find no justification to intervene in

the impugned order and the same is confirmed.

78. This Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

W.P.No.26717 of 2022:

79. The order of cancellation is dated 24.12.2019 and the present Writ

Petition has been filed on 27.09.2022 without assigning any justifiable reason

for the intervening delay except to state that the Accountant had left his job,

which in the considered view of the Court does not merit acceptance. I thus

find no justification to intervene in the impugned order and the same is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

26 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

confirmed.

80. This Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

W.P.No.27381 of 2022:

81. The order of cancellation is dated 09.05.2022, as against which

appeal was filed on 09.09.2022 with a delay of 16 days. However, the said

appeal has been rejected as being beyond the statutory period of limitation.

82. The petitioner has furnished some explanation for the delay stating

that the Consultant has misunderstood the procedure for filing of returns, which

the Court finds acceptable.

83. In such circumstances, and there being no serious objection by the

learned counsel for the respondent, the appeal is restored to the file of the

appellate authority, who shall hear the same on merits and pass orders

expeditiously, and in accordance with law.

84. The impugned order is set aside and this Writ Petition is allowed. No

costs.

W.P.No.27768 of 2022:

85. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus

quashing order dated 09.03.2022 cancelling the registration under the

provisions of the State GST Act and for a direction to the respondents to restore

the registration.

86. As regards the prayer for certiorari, the Court is unable to accept the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

27 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

same, seeing as the petitioner has challenged the cancellation of registration by

way of statutory appeal before the first appellate authority with a delay of 90

days.

87. The appeal ought to have been filed on or before 07.07.2022, but has

been filed only on 21.09.2022 and the appeal is pending as on date. The

petitioner is a senior citizen and has filed sufficient proof to indicate medical

ailments.

88. In light of the aforesaid circumstances and there being no serious

objection by the learned Government Advocate to the relief proposed to be

granted by this Court, there is a direction to the appellate authority/R2 to

dispose the appeal filed by the petitioner on 21.09.2022 on merits and in

accordance with law, without reference to limitation, but ensuring compliance

with all other statutory conditions, if any. Mandamus as sought for is issued.

89. This Writ Petition is disposed as above. No costs.

W.P.No.27816 of 2022:

90. The order of cancellation is dated 09.03.2022, as against which

appeal was filed on 12.08.2022 with a delay of 34 days. However, the said

appeal has been rejected as being beyond the statutory period of limitation.

91. The petitioner has furnished some explanation for the delay stating

that with the great difficulty, the petitioner has filed 3 months returns along

with tax, which the Court finds acceptable.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

28 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

92. In such circumstances, and there being no serious objection by the

learned counsel for the respondent, the appeal is restored to the file of the

appellate authority, who shall hear the same on merits and pass orders

expeditiously, and in accordance with law.

93. The impugned order is set aside and this Writ Petition is allowed. No

costs.

W.P.No.27854 of 2022:

94. The date of cancellation of registration is 10.05.2022. As against the

same, the petitioner, neither filed revocation of cancellation nor appeal before

the appellate authority, but has presented this Writ Petition on 14.10.2022.

95. The period of 120 days for filing appeal would expire on 09.09.2022.

Thus, even taking date of presentation of the Writ Petition as being the date on

which appeal was filed, there is a delay of one month.

96. The petitioner had set out some explanation in the affidavit filed in

support of the Writ Petition stating that he did not have a cordial relationship

with the consultant who was handling GSTR filing, which this Court finds

acceptable.

97. In light of the aforesaid, the petitioner is permitted to file an appeal

before the appellate authority within a period of four (4) weeks from date of

receipt of this order. Appeal, if any, filed within the time frame fixed, shall be

entertained by the appellate authority without reference to limitation, but https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

29 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

ensuring compliance with all other statutory conditions, if any, and disposed in

accordance with law.

98. This Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty. No costs.

W.P.No.28133 of 2022:

99. The date of cancellation of registration is 28.03.2022. As against the

same, the petitioner has neither filed revocation of cancellation nor appeal

before the appellate authority, but has presented this Writ Petition on

17.10.2022.

100. Even reckoning the period of 120 days for filing appeal that expires

on 27.07.2022, this Writ Petition has been filed beyond the period of three

months after the expiry of the statutory timeline. The petitioner has stated that

he was mentally affected on account of the loss in the business due to COVID-

19 pandemic. However, no evidence in this regard is placed before the Court.

101. Hence, and being unconvinced with the reason for the delay, this

Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

W.P.No.28206 of 2022:

102. The order of cancellation of registration is dated 21.02.2022, as

against which appeal was filed on 05.07.2022 with a delay of 15 days.

However, the said appeal has been rejected as being beyond the statutory period

of limitation.

103. The petitioner has furnished some explanation for the delay stating https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

30 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

that the petitioner is unable to continue its business due to COVID-19

pandemic, which the Court finds acceptable.

104. In such circumstances, and there being no serious objection by the

learned counsel for the respondent, the appeal is restored to the file of the

appellate authority/R2, who shall hear the same on merits and pass orders

expeditiously, and in accordance with law.

105. The impugned order is set aside and this Writ Petition is allowed.

No costs.

W.P.No.28415 of 2022:

106. The order of cancellation of registration is dated 21.04.2022, as

against which revocation application has been filed within the time prescribed

under the Statue. However, the same has been rejected on 17.05.2022. The

order is vague and non-speaking and merely states that there has been no

compliance with notice dated 05.05.2022.

107. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner

has remitted all tax dues upto June, 2022.

108. In such circumstances, the impugned order is set aside as being non-

speaking. Let the application for revocation be heard afresh after issuance of

notice to the petitioner and orders passed in accordance with law within a

period of eight (8) weeks from date of receipt of this order.

109. This Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

31 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

W.P.No.28600 of 2022:

110. The order of cancellation of registration is dated 10.10.2018.

Admittedly, the petitioner has filed an appeal only on 29.04.2021, which come

to be rejected on the ground that it has been filed beyond the period of statutory

limitation as per Section 107(4) of the Act.

111. The reasons for the delay are stated to be that one of the tenants, i.e.,

Punjab National Bank had delayed significantly the payment of rent. As a

result, the petitioner was unable to make the tax payments, which was

necessary for filing of appeal. However, this Court is unable to accede to the

request of the petitioner for condonation of the intervening delay as I do not

find the explanation credible or acceptable.

112. In light of aforesaid, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

W.P.No.29113 of 2022:

113. The order of cancellation is dated 03.01.2022 and the last date for

filing of appeal was on 03.05.2022. The present Writ Petition has been filed on

31.10.2022. Though there is some explanation tendered for the delay, being the

advanced age of the petitioner and ailments that have been suffered by him in

the past, the same do not convince the Court as justifying the intervening delay.

I thus find no necessity to intervene in the impugned order and the same stands

confirmed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

32 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

114. This Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

W.P.No.29120 of 2022:

115. The order of cancellation is dated 03.02.2022 and the last date for

filing of appeal was on 05.06.2022. The present Writ Petition has been filed on

31.10.2022. Though there is some explanation tendered in regard to the age of

the petitioner and ailments that have been suffered by him in the past, the same

do not convince the Court as constituting sufficient justification for condoning

the intervening delay. I thus find no justification to intervene in the impugned

order and the same is confirmed.

116. This Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

W.P.No.29172 of 2022:

117. The order of cancellation of registration is dated 03.01.2022 and the

last date for filing of appeal was 05.05.2022. The present Writ Petition has

been filed on 02.11.2022 without assigning any reason for the intervening

delay. I thus find no justification to intervene in the impugned order and the

same is confirmed.

118. This Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

W.P.No.29438 of 2022:

119. The order of cancellation of registration is dated 09.12.2021 and the

last date for filing of appeal was 09.04.2022. The present Writ Petition has

been filed on 03.11.2022 without assigning any reason for the intervening https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

33 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

delay. I thus find no justification to intervene in the impugned order and the

same is confirmed.

120. This Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

W.P.No.29745 of 2022:

121. The order of cancellation of registration is dated 06.10.2020 and the

last date for filing of appeal was 06.02.2021. The present Writ Petition has

been filed on 02.11.2022 without assigning any reason for the intervening

delay. I thus find no justification to intervene in the impugned order and the

same is confirmed.

122. This Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

W.P.No.29775 of 2022:

123. The order of cancellation of registration is dated 12.11.2019 and the

last date for filing of appeal was 12.03.2020. However, on 15.03.2020, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court taking judicial cognizance of the COVID-19 pandemic,

extended the limitation for filing of appeals, In Re:Cognizance, effective till

29.05.2022.

124. The petitioner in this case is, in my considered view, entitled to this

benefit of extension despite the limitation having expired four days prior to the

date of initial order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 15.03.2020.

125. The petitioner has, in fact, filed an appeal on 08.12.2021 that has

come to be dismissed on the ground of delay. In light of the narration as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

34 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

aforesaid, I am of the view that the delay that has been occasioned should be

restricted to 4 days, if at all, and such delay is, in my considered view,

condonable.

126. The appeal is restored to the file of the appellate authority/R1, who

shall hear the same on merits without reference to limitation and pass orders

expeditiously, and in accordance with law.

127. The impugned order is set aside and this Writ Petition is allowed.

No costs.

W.P.No.30046 of 2022:

128. The order of cancellation of registration is dated 14.02.2022, as

against which appeal was filed on 26.07.2022 with a delay of 26 days.

However, the said appeal has been rejected as being beyond the statutory period

of limitation.

129. The petitioner has furnished some explanation for the delay citing ill

health and financial constraints, which the Court finds acceptable.

130. In such circumstances, there being no serious objection by the

learned counsel for the respondent, the appeal is restored to the file of the

appellate authority, who shall hear the same on merits and pass orders in

accordance with law.

131. The impugned order is set aside and this Writ Petition is allowed.

No costs.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

35 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

W.P.No.30075 of 2022:

132. The petitioner is called absent. The order of cancellation of

registration is dated 14.12.2021 and the last date for filing of appeal was

14.04.2022. The present Writ Petition has been filed on 09.11.2022 without

assigning any reason for the intervening delay. I thus find no justification to

intervene in the impugned order and the same is confirmed.

133. This Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

W.P.No.30108 of 2022:

134. The date of cancellation of registration is 28.06.2022. The last date

of filing of appeal expired on 28.10.2022. The petitioner has presented this

Writ Petition on 09.11.2022.

135. The petitioner had set out some explanation in the affidavit filed in

support of the Writ Petition stating that she is not familiar with the procedures

involved in initiating the litigation, which this Court finds acceptable.

136. In light of the aforesaid, the petitioner is permitted to file an appeal

before the appellate authority within a period of four (4) weeks from date of

receipt of this order. Appeal, if any, filed within the time frame fixed, shall be

entertained by the appellate authority without reference to limitation, but

ensuring compliance with all other statutory conditions, if any, and disposed in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

36 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

accordance with law.

137. This Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty as above. No costs.

W.P.No.30241 of 2022:

138. The order of cancellation of registration is dated 09.05.2022 and the

last date for filing of appeal was 09.09.2022. The present Writ Petition has

been filed on 07.11.2022. The petitioner is a company and the only reason that

has been given for the delay in availing remedial measures is that it was

unaware of the methodology for seeking revocation, which in the considered

view of the Court does not merit acceptance. I thus find no justification to

intervene in the impugned order and the same is confirmed.

139. This Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

W.P.No.30279 of 2022:

140. The order of cancellation of registration is dated 17.03.2022. The

last date for filing of appeal was 17.07.2022. The Writ Petition has been filed

on 10.11.2022.

141. The reasons for the delay are stated to be that payments had been

due from TANGEDCO for the supplies made and hence returns could not be

filed. However, this Court is unable to accept to the request of the petitioner

for condonation of the intervening delay as it is incumbent upon the petitioner

to ensure statutory compliances within the timelines provided.

142. In light of aforesaid, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

37 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

W.P.No.30283 of 2022:

143. The order of cancellation of registration is dated 03.02.2022. The

last date for filing of appeal was 03.06.2022. The Writ Petition has been filed

on 10.11.2022.

144. The reasons for the delay are stated to be that payments had been

due from TANGEDCO for the supplies made and hence returns could not be

filed. However, this Court is unable to accept to the request of the petitioner

for condonation of the intervening delay as it is incumbent upon the petitioner

to ensure statutory compliances within the timelines provided.

145. In light of aforesaid, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

146.This batch of writ petitions is thus disposed in light of the discussion

above. Each writ petition has been considered on the strength of the relevant

facts that emanate in that matter. I have thereafter examined whether there is a

justification to intervene based upon the conclusion and ratio contained in the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Glaxo Smith Kline

(supra).

147. Dehors the conclusions arrived at in the case of the respective

petitioners, it is made clear that all petitioners are at liberty to seek restoration

of registration in accordance with law and learned Standing counsels would https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

38 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

also accede to this position. All connected miscellaneous petitions are closed

and there shall be no order as to costs.

16.11.2022 Index : Yes Speaking Order Sl Note:Issue order copy on 20.12.2022.

To

The Superintendent of Central Tax, Nungambakkam Zone IV, Chennai Central, Range 1, Guindy MHU Complex, 692, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

39 W.P.Nos.14879 of 2022 etc. batch

Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J.

Sl

W.P.Nos.14879, 26088, 18017, 25637, 25666, 25950, 26653, 27033, 27189, 27759, 28151, 30227, 27552, & 30081 of 2022 and W.P.Nos.4522, 4686 & 4693 of 2020 & W.P.Nos.19334, 25964, 26608, 26623, 26717, 27381, 27768, 27816, 27854, 28133, 28206, 28415, 28600, 29113, 29120, 29172, 29438, 29745, 29755, 30046, 30075, 30108, 30241, 30279, 30356, 30144 & 30283 of 2022

WMP Nos.14082, 25158, 17339, 17340, 24630, 24633, 24684, 25707, 25709, 26253, 27051, 29658, 29659, 26800, 29499 & 29501 of 2022 WMP.Nos.5365, 5369, 5537, 5541, 5544 & 5547 of 2020 & WMP.Nos.18606, 18608, 25661, 25674, 25776, 26589, 26591, 27059, 27060, 27148, 27420, 27499, 27500, 27887, 28410, 28413, 28399, 28401, 28456, 28771, 28773, 29140, 29157, 29489, 29491, 29537, 29538, 29669, 29671, 29710, 29711, 29716 & 29718 of 2022

16.11.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

40