2022 (8) TMI 973 - HC - GST

Cancellation of registration of petitioner - allegation of non existent firm and not conducting business from the principal place of business and are engaged in availing/passing on fraudulent ITC - section 30 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - HELD THAT - As per section 30 of the Act, any aggrieved person, whose registration is cancelled by the proper office on his own motion, may apply to such officer for revocation of cancellation of the registration in the prescribed manner within thirty days from the date of service of the cancellation order registration. When the application is already filed and has remained undecided, the proper course to be followed by this court would be to require the competent authority of the respondents to decide the said revocation application treating it to have been made in accordance with section 30 of the Act more particularly with regard to the time limit within which it was required to be made. The competent authority of the respondent is hereby directed to take a decision in accordance with law on the said revocation application within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Cancellation of registration under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 based on non-existence of business and fraudulent activities.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition seeking to set aside an order dated 1.12.2021, which cancelled their registration under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The cancellation was based on the findings of the Anti-Evasion team that the petitioner's firm was non-existent, not conducting business from the principal place, and engaged in fraudulent activities related to Input Tax Credit (ITC). The petitioner argued that a similar show cause notice was issued earlier but dropped, only to receive another notice leading to the impugned order.

The court noted that the earlier show cause notice and the impugned order were based on different grounds. The earlier notice focused on the non-existence of the firm and lack of business operations, while the subsequent notice mentioned fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The court refrained from delving into the merits of the case, as the petitioner had filed a revocation application under section 30 of the Act, which remained pending. Section 30 allows aggrieved parties to apply for revocation of registration cancellation within thirty days.

The court directed the competent authority to decide on the revocation application within six weeks, emphasizing adherence to the statutory provisions. Despite acknowledging the background facts, the court abstained from expressing any opinion on the factual aspects. Ultimately, the petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute for the specified relief, with direct service permitted.