9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 1262 - HC - GSTCancellation of registration of petitioner - appeal dismissed as being beyond the prescribed period of limitation - HELD THAT - In the present case from the perusal of the order dated 07.01.2023, clearly there is no reason ascribed to take such a harsh action of cancellation of registration. 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 07.01.2023 (Annexure - 2) is set aside. The petition is accordingly allowed.
Issues Involved:
Challenge to cancellation of registration under GST Act and dismissal of appeal on grounds of delay condonation application. Cancellation of Registration: The petitioner, a proprietorship concern engaged in civil contractual works, challenged the cancellation of registration under the GST Act due to non-filing of returns. The petitioner claimed lack of knowledge of the show-cause notice due to COVID-19, resulting in the cancellation order dated 07.01.2023. The cancellation order lacked reasons and was deemed to be without application of mind, violating the petitioner's right to run a business under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner argued that the order was against the mandate of Article 14. Citing the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai and Ors., it was contended that the order could be challenged as it lacked reasons, as per the judgment in Om Prakash Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors. The High Court set aside the cancellation order dated 07.01.2023, directing the petitioner to file a reply to the show-cause notice within three weeks for a fresh order by the Adjudicating Authority. Dismissal of Appeal: The petitioner's appeal against the cancellation order was dismissed by the Appellate Authority due to a delay, citing Section 107 of the GST Act that does not provide for condonation of delay. The petitioner argued that the dismissal was justified under the Act but contended that the cancellation order lacked application of mind. The High Court held that the appeal dismissal was valid as per the statutory scheme of the Act, but the cancellation order was set aside for lacking reasons and violating constitutional rights. The Department was directed to proceed in accordance with the law following the setting aside of the cancellation order.
|
