9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 891 - HC - GSTCancelation of GST registration - Service of SCN - It is the case of the petitioner that no document either in the form of notice or any other document has been received by the petitioner at his registered place of his business - Principles of Natural Justice - HELD THAT - In similar type of cases, this Court has considered such type of show cause notice, which was issued for cancellation of registration and this Court, after considering the decision rendered in case of Aggrawal Dyeing 2022 (4) TMI 864 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , has allowed the writ petition being Special Civil Application No.903/2022 by an order dated 07.06.2023. The show cause notice dated 01.07.2022 issued by the respondent to the petitioner is very vague and cryptic. Therefore, it was difficult for the petitioner to give any reply to the said show cause notice - However, it is the case of the respondent that prior to issuance of the show cause notice dated 01.07.2022, in fact, the respondent issued notice on 30.06.2022, copy of which is placed on record at Page No. 48 of the compilation. It is contended by learned AGP that in the said notice, specific details are provided to the petitioner so that the petitioner can give reply. However, it is not in dispute that the said show cause notice was not served by RPAD and it is the specific case of the petitioner that the notice dated 30.06.2022 has not been received by the petitioner. Thus, it is clear that the concerned respondent has failed to provide specific reasons for cancellation of registration under Section 29(2) of the GST Act - both the show cause notice as well as the order dated 15.07.2022 deserve to be quashed and set aside - petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the show-cause notice dated 01.07.2022. 2. Validity of the cancellation order dated 15.07.2022. 3. Adequacy of notice service to the petitioner. 4. Opportunity for the petitioner to respond and appeal. Summary: Issue 1: Validity of the Show-Cause Notice Dated 01.07.2022 The petitioner challenged the show-cause notice dated 01.07.2022 issued under Section 29 of the GST Act read with Rule 22(1) of the GST Rules, 2017, arguing that it was vague and lacked specific details necessary for a proper response. The Court observed that the notice was indeed vague and cryptic, making it difficult for the petitioner to respond. The notice merely stated, "In case, Registration has been obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of fact," without providing any specific details or evidence. Issue 2: Validity of the Cancellation Order Dated 15.07.2022 The petitioner also contested the cancellation order dated 15.07.2022, arguing that it lacked assigned reasons and was based on the vague show-cause notice. The Court found that the cancellation order did not provide specific reasons for the cancellation of registration under Section 29(2) of the GST Act, thus failing to meet the legal requirements for such an order. Issue 3: Adequacy of Notice Service to the Petitioner The petitioner claimed not to have received the show-cause notice dated 30.06.2022, which the respondent argued was affixed on the door of the petitioner's closed premises. The Court noted that the notice was not sent by RPAD and there was no material to suggest that the petitioner had received it. This procedural lapse further invalidated the cancellation proceedings. Issue 4: Opportunity for the Petitioner to Respond and Appeal The Court highlighted that the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice due to its vague nature and the improper service of the notice dated 30.06.2022. The Court referenced similar cases where vague notices were deemed insufficient for legal proceedings, thus setting a precedent for quashing such notices and orders. Conclusion: The Court quashed both the show-cause notice dated 01.07.2022 and the cancellation order dated 15.07.2022, directing the respondent authorities to issue a fresh notice with detailed reasons and provide a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner to respond. The registration of the petitioner was ordered to be restored forthwith.
|
