Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court allowed a writ plea filed by AP Industrial and Technical Consultancy Organisation Limited (APTICO) challenging an order of the deputy state tax officer cancelling its GST registration. The impugned order was made primarily on the ground that the petitioner had defaulted filing of returns for more than six months continuously. The petitioner is a public sector unit promoted by the AP state government and its accounts are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG). It is a technical consultancy service organisation engaged in providing technical support services to the industry by undertaking technical, management, and development consultancy services and also implements various welfare and training programmes on behalf of the central and state governments. According to the petitioner, during the pandemic, attrition of the employees and changes in the management were some of the reasons for missing the GST filing deadline. The petitioner’s counsel said that given a chance, the petitioner would make good the default so far as non-filing of the returns was concerned, and was ready to pay the requisite fine and penalty if any and the order of cancellation of registration accordingly be restored, or else the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss. Moreover, cancellation of registration is not in the interest of either of the parties in as much as the government is also not going to gain much. A bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and N. Tukaramji took cognisance of the fact that Covid-19 had ripped through the country, bringing commercial and industrial establishments to a standstill or at least remaining closed for a major part of that period. The business of these establishments, including that of the petitioner, must have definitely been affected. Speaking for the bench, Justice Koshy said, “If the default on the part of the petitioner is only so far as non-furnishing of the returns, we are of the considered opinion that subject to the petitioner making good the default, the said GST registration of the petitioner would get restored which would enable the petitioner to carry on his business and which would also generate GST revenue to the respondent authorities as well.” The bench allowed the writ plea requiring the petitioner to immediately appear before the authority and update its GST returns.
Joint collector cannot decide on title of property: HC
Justice S. Nanda of the Telangana High Court ruled that a joint collector had no powers to examine the issue of title of property. She accordingly set aside the order of the joint collector, Suryapet, made in January 2022 as devoid of jurisdiction and far in excess of powers under the TS Rights in Land and Patta Passbook Act. The court allowed the writ plea filed by Rachakonda Ayodhya, an agriculturist from Suryapet, questioning the order of the joint collector, who had directed the Nuthankal tahsildar to alter the revenue records in favour of a rival claimant to property of two acres and six guntas. The private respondents contended that they had purchased the property from the petitioner through a sada bainama in December 2013, the parties were also lock-jacked in a civil dispute. The judge pointed out that the revenue authorities erred in examining the documents filed before them, in deciding the title of one Morigala Ramesh. Justice Nanda relied upon a number of cases of the apex court and the High Court to point out that the order of the joint collector was without jurisdiction. Justice Nanda said that the joint collector should not have resolved the disputed questions of title, which were thrown up by the facts of the present case.
