2021 (2) TMI 986 - HC - GST

Cancellation of petitioner's GST registration - scope of SCN - petitioners say that the cancellation order has been made on grounds which did not find place in the show cause notice - HELD THAT - Considering the charges made in the show cause notice and those in the order of cancellation, it appears that certain fact finding acts have been undertaken by the Proper Officer. The writ Court cannot go into the correctness of fact finding exercise said to have been undertaken by the Proper Officer. Since an alternative remedy in form of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act is available to the petitioners, which is more competent to deal with the fact finding issues, I am not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition - The petitioners are permitted to approach the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act within 2nd March, 2021. The Appellate Authority on being approached in time shall dispose of the petitioners appeal within a period of two months from the date of the petitioners preferring the appeal - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the cancellation of Goods and Services Tax Registration based on grounds not mentioned in the show cause notice.

Analysis:
The petitioners contested the cancellation of their Goods and Services Tax Registration, arguing that the order was arbitrary as it was based on grounds not included in the show cause notice. The cancellation order was issued by the Proper Officer after considering the petitioners' response to the show cause notice. The petitioners claimed that the cancellation order did not align with the charges outlined in the show cause notice, making it unjust and beyond the officer's jurisdiction.

Analysis:
The show cause notice alleged that the petitioners had obtained their registration certificate through misrepresentation and fraud. The order of cancellation was justified by an investigation conducted by the HQ (A/E), which revealed the non-existence of the principal place of business of the assessee. The Proper Officer's decision was based on these findings, indicating that certain fact-finding actions were undertaken during the process.

Analysis:
The High Court refrained from delving into the correctness of the fact-finding exercise conducted by the Proper Officer, as the petitioners had an alternative remedy available through an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Court directed the petitioners to approach the Appellate Authority within a specified timeframe to appeal the cancellation order. The Appellate Authority was instructed to consider the appeal without constraints of limitation and to address all points raised by the petitioners, including those presented in the writ petition.

Analysis:
The Court clarified that its observations were solely for the purpose of adjudicating the writ petition and should not influence the Appellate Authority's decision. The writ petition was disposed of without any costs, and since no affidavits were requested, the allegations made in the petition were not deemed admitted. The parties were granted an urgent certified copy of the order upon request, subject to necessary formalities.