9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 371 - HC - GSTCancellation of registration of petitioner - case of petitioner is that since the impugned order on the face of it is per-se illegal and also the reading of the same would go to show that the same has been passed without application of mind - Principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is apparent that while giving the reason for cancellation of the registration, it is mentioned that no reply has been received from the petitioner whereas in the same order in the very beginning there is a specific reference that the said order has taken into the reference the reply dated 25.02.2020 of the petitioner which is in response to the notice to show cause dated 14.02.2020, which is contrary in itself. The order dated 14.04.2020 passed by the Superintendent, Kanpur Sector 12, Central Goods and Services Tax (Annexure 5 to the writ petition), is set aside with liberty to respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law - Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
Challenge to order cancelling registration under Goods and Service Tax Act - Availability of alternative remedy under Section 30 of CGST Act - Maintainability of writ petition - Grounds for cancellation of registration - Contradiction in order - Request for setting aside the impugned order. Analysis: The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 14.04.2020, cancelling their registration under the Goods and Service Tax Act. The respondent raised a preliminary objection, contending that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 30 of the CGST Act for revocation of the impugned order. The petitioner argued that since the impugned order was prima facie illegal and passed without due application of mind, the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy. On the merits of the case, the petitioner, a registered entity under the GST Act, detailed the sequence of events leading to the cancellation order. The petitioner received a notice in April 2019 and responded accordingly. Subsequently, a show cause notice for cancellation was issued, and the petitioner's counsel appeared seeking details. The impugned order cancelling registration was passed on 14.04.2020, citing non-attendance at a Personal Hearing (PH) and failure to submit a reply as reasons for approval of cancellation. The petitioner contended that the order was arbitrary and contradictory as it referenced the petitioner's reply in the same order while stating otherwise in the cancellation rationale. During the hearing, the respondent's counsel conceded that the impugned order could not be sustained legally and suggested remanding the matter for a fresh order. The Court observed the contradiction in the cancellation order where it mentioned the absence of a reply despite referencing the petitioner's response in the same document. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated 14.04.2020 and granted liberty to the respondent to pass a fresh order in compliance with the law. The writ petition was allowed, with no costs imposed. In conclusion, the Court found the cancellation order to be flawed due to the inconsistency in citing the petitioner's reply. By setting aside the order and allowing the respondent to issue a fresh decision, the Court upheld the principles of natural justice and fairness in administrative actions under the GST regime.
|
