9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 237 - HC - GSTRevocation of cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - HELD THAT - Clearly, when the first impugned order i.e., order dated 09.12.2020 was passed, the concerned officer had with him the reply dated 23.11.2020. There is no reference to the said reply or the reasons set out therein, in the order dated 09.12.2020. The order whereby the application for revocation was rejected which is, as noticed above, the order dated 18.12.2021, shows that an inspection was carried out on the premises of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that although, Rule 25 requires inspection to be done in the presence of the person whose property is being inspected, it was not done as the petitioner had no notice of the inspection - the perusal of the order dated 09.12.2020 clearly discloses that there is no tax outstanding qua the petitioner. The order of cancellation set aside - The respondents will ensure that the petitioner s registration is revived.
Issues:
1. Cancellation of GST registration 2. Dismissal of application for revocation of cancellation 3. Violation of principles of natural justice Cancellation of GST Registration: The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 11.11.2020, questioning the non-functioning of the business at the registered address. Despite responding on 23.11.2020, providing reasons for continuing the registration due to pending activities like credit notes issuance, rectification of GST returns, and refund claims, the first impugned order dated 09.12.2020 canceled the GST registration. The petitioner then filed an application for revocation, which was rejected on 18.02.2021. The court noted discrepancies in the process, including the lack of response to extension requests, non-consideration of the petitioner's reply, and absence of a physical inspection notice as required by Rule 25 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Rules, 2017. Dismissal of Application for Revocation of Cancellation: The rejection of the revocation application was based on an inspection carried out without notice to the petitioner, violating Rule 25 which mandates the presence of the property owner during inspections. The court found that the officer passing the orders did not consider the reasons provided by the petitioner for maintaining the registration, leading to a violation of natural justice principles. Additionally, no outstanding tax liability was found against the petitioner, indicating a genuine intent to continue the registration for specific purposes outlined in the petitioner's reply. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The petitioner argued a violation of natural justice principles, citing the lack of notice for physical inspection, non-consideration of extension requests, and failure to take into account the reasons provided for maintaining registration. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the petitioner had opportunities to respond and participate in the process. The court observed that the impugned orders lacked proper consideration of the petitioner's submissions and procedural irregularities, leading to the setting aside of the orders dated 09.12.2020 and 18.02.2021. The court directed the respondents to revive the petitioner's registration, emphasizing the petitioner's commitment to apply for de-registration once the purpose of registration is fulfilled. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues surrounding the cancellation of GST registration, dismissal of the revocation application, and the violation of natural justice principles in the process. The court's decision to set aside the impugned orders and revive the petitioner's registration underscores the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to statutory requirements in such matters.
|
