Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2023 (12) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2023 (12) TMI 154 - HC - GST


Issues involved:
Cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect and lack of reasons in the impugned order.

Cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect:
The legal representative of the taxpayer filed a petition challenging the cancellation of the taxpayer's GST registration with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017 after the taxpayer's demise. The taxpayer had applied for cancellation of GST registration due to discontinuance of business before his death, but the respondent issued a notice after his demise, requesting documents and a reply. The rejection of the application posthumously was deemed unsustainable as the taxpayer could not have provided a reply after his death. The Proper Officer later proposed cancellation due to non-filing of returns for six months, leading to the final cancellation of registration without providing reasons. The court directed the cancellation of GST registration w.e.f. 31.03.2020 as requested by the taxpayer, emphasizing that a taxpayer cannot be held responsible for filing returns after closing down the business.

Lack of reasons in the impugned order:
The order cancelling the taxpayer's GST registration lacked reasons, making it unsustainable. The court noted that the officer could not have examined a reply that was never furnished, and the absence of stated reasons rendered the order erroneous. The subsequent cancellation based on non-response to a show cause notice was also deemed unsustainable due to the absence of reasons. The court directed the cancellation of GST registration w.e.f. 31.03.2020, highlighting that the lack of reasons in official orders is unacceptable and clarified that the ruling does not prevent the respondent from taking lawful actions in the future.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates