9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 1231 - HC - GSTCancellation of registration of petitioner - case of the petitioner is that he has not been able to get the show cause notice issued by the respondent and, therefore, he could not submit the reply within the stipulated time - HELD THAT - The present petitioner is also entitled for the benefit of the order passed by this Court in TECHNOSUN INDIA PVT. LTD. LUCKNOW THRU. ITS DIRECTOR AMIT KUMAR GAUTAM VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THRU. PRIN. COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL G.S.T., LKO. U.P. AND 2 OTHERS 2022 (9) TMI 1412 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT - In the said judgment, the Court has held that the impugned order does not assign any reason whatsoever for cancelling registration of the petitioner and is passed only on the ground that reply to the show cause notice is not given. The non-submission of reply to the show cause cannot be a ground for cancellation of the registration. The present petitioner is also entitled for the same relief. The benefit of the order shall also be made available to the present petitioner. The order is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to appear before the respondent along with the reply to show cause notice and the certified copy of this order within three weeks from today - Petition allowed.
Issues:
Challenge to order cancelling GST registration based on non-submission of GST return and delay in reply to show cause notice. Analysis: The petitioner, a sole proprietary firm engaged in civil work contract business, challenged the cancellation of GST registration due to non-submission of GST return and delay in responding to a show cause notice. The petitioner claimed non-receipt of the show cause notice, leading to the cancellation of registration. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal citing delay as the reason. The petitioner argued for relief based on a previous judgment (Technosum India Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow Vs. Union of India) that emphasized the necessity of assigning reasons for cancellation of registration and highlighted that non-submission of reply alone cannot warrant cancellation. The petitioner sought similar relief as granted in the referenced judgment. The court considered the petitioner's argument in light of the previous judgment and granted relief. The court set aside the order cancelling registration and the appellate order, allowing the petitioner to appear before the respondent with the reply to the show cause notice and relevant documents within three weeks. The respondents were directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law upon the petitioner's compliance. The court's decision was influenced by the precedent set in the Technosum India Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow case, emphasizing the need for proper justification before cancelling registration and rejecting the sole basis of non-submission of reply for such action. In conclusion, the court's judgment in this case reflects a consistent application of legal principles established in prior cases. The petitioner successfully argued for relief based on the necessity of providing valid reasons for cancelling GST registration and the insufficiency of non-submission of reply as the sole ground for such action. The court's decision underscores the importance of due process and proper justification in administrative actions, ensuring fairness and adherence to constitutional principles.
|
