2021 (10) TMI 369 - HC - GST

Cancellation or suspension of the registration of petitioner - Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - There is no single whisper that after the expiry of 30 days, as provided under Sub-rule (3) Rule 22, when the cancellation was being resorted to, though apart from the fact that the office concerned has become functus officio after the expiry of 30 days, even if at all, the cancellation was required, in that eventuality, then the petitioner ought to have been heard. The learned counsel for the parties agreed that because the order impugned apparently suffers from the violation of a statutory provisions of non-providing of any opportunity as contemplated under Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Act, with the consensus of the parties, the impugned order is quashed - the matter is remitted back to the respondent No. 2, to take an appropriate action and decision thereon too, only after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 regarding cancellation or suspension of registration.
2. Compliance with the statutory obligation of providing an opportunity of hearing before cancelling registration.
3. Application of Rule 22 of the Rules framed under the Act in the context of registration cancellation.

Analysis:
1. The judgment delves into the interpretation of Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, specifically focusing on the mandatory requirement of providing an opportunity of hearing before cancelling registration. Sub-section (2) of Section 29 establishes the necessity of a hearing in cases where registration is to be cancelled due to default or upon application by the registered assessee.

2. The judgment further examines the compliance with the statutory obligation of granting a hearing before cancelling registration. It highlights the importance of adhering to procedural requirements, especially in cases where the cancellation is sought either by the registered assessee or due to default. The judgment emphasizes the significance of due process and the right to be heard before any adverse action is taken.

3. Additionally, the judgment scrutinizes the application of Rule 22 of the Rules framed under the Act concerning registration cancellation. Rule 22 outlines the procedure for cancellation of registration, including issuing notices, providing opportunities to respond, and determining the effective date of cancellation. The judgment underscores the importance of following the prescribed rules and timelines to ensure procedural fairness in registration cancellation matters.

In conclusion, the judgment quashes the impugned order due to the violation of statutory provisions regarding the opportunity of hearing as mandated under Sub-section (2) of Section 29. The matter is remitted back to the concerned authority with directions to provide the petitioner with a hearing before taking any further action on the registration cancellation, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal requirements in such cases.