9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 711 - HC - GSTValidity of SCN - Cancellation of GST registration - SCN was served upon the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why his registration would not be cancelled as the petitioner/taxpayer was found non-functioning/not existing at the principal place of business - It is the contention of the petitioner that the show cause notice was vague - HELD THAT - It is true that no hearing was given to the petitioner. It is also true that the order of cancellation is not a speaking one. However, the petitioner received such an order on February 14, 2020 and he has moved this Court in August, 2020. There are no reason to invoke a high prerogative writ and allow the prayer of the petitioner to set aside the order of cancellation in view of the provisions of Sections 30 and 107. Section 30 of the GST Act provides that a party aggrieved by an order of cancellation may apply for revocation of cancellation. The apprehension of the petitioner that the entire claim would have to be deposited if the petitioner takes recourse to Section 30, is refuted by Mr. Majumdar - this Court does not think it fit to set aside the order of cancellation of registration at such a belated stage, specially as the period of limitation has been extended by the authorities. The petitioner shall exhaust the available remedy under the statute. Application disposed off.
Issues:
1. Show cause notice for cancellation of registration. 2. Lack of opportunity of hearing. 3. Invocation of writ jurisdiction without exhausting alternative remedy. 4. Order of cancellation with retrospective effect. 5. Belated challenge to the order of cancellation. 6. Applicability of Sections 29, 30, and 107 of the GST Act. 7. Requirement to exhaust available remedy under the statute. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, conducting business as SAWARIYA STEEL INDUSTRIES, received a show cause notice dated February 4, 2020, regarding the non-functioning status at the principal place of business. The notice required a response within 7 days, failing which an ex parte decision would be made based on available records. Subsequently, an order of cancellation was issued on February 14, 2020, demanding tax payment. 2. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice was vague, and the cancellation order lacked a hearing opportunity. Despite acknowledging the absence of a hearing and the non-speaking nature of the cancellation order, the petitioner approached the Court in August 2020, challenging the retrospective effect of the cancellation and the absence of a hearing. 3. The State argued that the petitioner prematurely invoked the writ jurisdiction without utilizing the alternative remedy provided under the Goods and Services Tax Act, referring to Sections 29, 30, and 107, along with Rule 23(1) of the GST Rules. The State highlighted that the petitioner's failure to respond to the show cause notice led to the assumption of disinterest in contesting the proceedings. 4. The Court, considering the delayed challenge and the statutory provisions, declined to set aside the cancellation order at a late stage. Emphasizing the need to exhaust available statutory remedies, the Court advised the petitioner to follow the procedures outlined in the statute, particularly Section 30 for revocation of cancellation, without the fear of immediate full claim deposit. 5. Acknowledging the strict interpretation of fiscal statutes and the importance of public revenue, the Court refrained from interference, urging the petitioner to address concerns, such as the lack of hearing opportunity and access to relevant reports, through the statutory framework. The Court emphasized the authority's duty to consider all aspects independently while making decisions in accordance with the law. 6. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition, emphasizing the petitioner's obligation to adhere to the statutory procedures and explore available remedies under the law. The Court's decision underscored the significance of complying with statutory provisions in matters involving public revenue, highlighting the need for due process and exhaustiveness in pursuing legal remedies.
|
