9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 997 - HC - GSTCancellation of GST registration of petitioner - non-speaking order - Non-constitution of Tribunal - HELD THAT - The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of M/S CHANDRA SAIN, SHARDA NAGAR, LUCKNOW THRU. ITS PROPRIETOR MR. CHANDRA SAIN VERSUS U.O.I. THRU. SECY. MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI AND 5 OTHERS 2022 (9) TMI 1047 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT and the petition is to be allowed on that ground alone - it was held in the case that In view of the order being without any application of mind, the same does not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as such, the impugned order dated 13.02.2020 (Annexure 2) is set aside. However, this Court intends to record the manner in which the GST authorities have issued the show cause notice which from the bare perusal of the notice dated 28.08.2021 is reckless and as vague as it can be. Even the order dated 06.10.2021 is not only arbitrary but a reckless exercise of power which led to denial of the rights of freedom and business guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, as such, the orders and the show cause notice can never pass the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The impugned orders dated 16.07.2021, 06.10.2021 and 07.12.2021 are set aside - The writ petition stands allowed.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the cancellation of registration, rejection of the application for revocation of cancellation, and dismissal of the appeal by the appellate authority. Cancellation of Registration: The petitioner challenged the cancellation of registration based on a show cause notice alleging non-existence of the firm at the business place. The petitioner contended that they were unaware of the show cause notice, leading to the cancellation of registration. The petitioner filed an application seeking revocation of the cancellation, citing that the business was operational as evidenced by the filed ITR. However, the authorities rejected the revocation request, stating that the business premises were found closed during a survey, with discrepancies in the returns filed. The appellate authority upheld the cancellation, emphasizing the grounds for the initial order. Violation of Legal Rights: The petitioner argued that the orders were unlawful, citing violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner contended that the cancellation order was non-speaking and arbitrary, referencing a previous court judgment. Additionally, the show cause notice was criticized for being vague and not providing sufficient information for a proper response. The petitioner further raised concerns about the reliance on extraneous information not disclosed to them, leading to a decision based on irrelevant grounds. The appellate order was also challenged for failing to address these issues, alleging arbitrariness. Court Decision: The court found in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the orders of cancellation, rejection of revocation, and dismissal of the appeal. The court highlighted the reckless and arbitrary nature of the show cause notice and subsequent orders, deeming them violative of constitutional rights. The respondents were directed to issue a fresh order considering the petitioner's submissions and ITR returns within a specified timeframe. Furthermore, a copy of the order was to be sent to the Ministry of Finance to prevent the issuance of similar vague show cause notices in the future.
|
