Case Law: RAMKRISHNA ROADWAYS VERSUS STATE OF TRIPURA AND OTHERS-H.C.
of TRIPURA
A writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where the petitioner challenged an order which was issued on the basis that the petitioner had not declared their godown (warehouse) as an additional place of business.
The representative of the petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without providing any notice to the petitioner. Further, the petitioner claimed that they had already declared the godown as an additional place of business, even when there was no specific column for mentioning a godown in the prescribed form under the Goods and Services Tax (GST).
The representative of the State-respondent argued that the writ petition lacked merit. He stated that the petitioner had no right to obtain a favorable writ as no legal, fundamental, or statutory rights had been violated by the respondents.
After considering the arguments and examining the evidence on record, the Court concluded that the impugned order should be set aside since the order was issued without adhering to the principles of natural justice, as no prior notice was given to the petitioner. However, the State-respondents were given the liberty to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner. Upon receiving the notice, the petitioner would be required to provide an explanation in accordance with the law.
In light of these observations and directions, the Court allowed the writ petition and disposed of the case.
| SW Point of View:While the benefit in this case is primarily on procedural non-compliance, however, as per CGST Act, “place of business” includes “a place from where the business is ordinarily carried out, and includes a warehouse, a godown or any other place where a taxable person stores his goods, supplies or receives goods or services or both”. Therefore, godown is required to be declared as additional place of business. |
