9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 714 - HC - GSTCancellation of GST registration of the petitioner - service of SCN - allegation is that the petitioner did not appear in person or through an authorised representative upon receipt of the show cause notice - no reply to SCN - HELD THAT - From the show cause notice, it appears that the proposed cancellation was on the basis of a report from the State Tax Officer, Investigation Survey Unit-I, Erode Division to the effect that the petitioner was not carrying on business activities at the registered place of business. The impugned order records that the petitioner did not appear in person or through an authorised representative upon receipt of the show cause notice. It also records that the petitioner did not reply to the show cause notice. Thus, the statement recorded in the impugned order of cancellation is not in consonance with the submission of learned Government Advocate on instructions. The petitioner should be provided an opportunity to contest the cancellation of registration. Solely for this reason, the impugned order of cancellation is interfered with by quashing the same - the matter is remanded to the 1st respondent for re-consideration, and the petitioner is permitted to file a reply to the show cause notice within a maximum period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
Issues involved:
The cancellation of GST registration without proper notice and opportunity for the petitioner to contest the decision. Summary: Issue 1: Lack of proper notice and opportunity for the petitioner The petitioner challenged the cancellation of her GST registration, stating that she was unaware of the show cause notice and therefore did not reply to it. The petitioner received an intimation regarding assessment but was shocked to receive the cancellation order without proper communication. Issue 2: Discrepancies in the issuance of notices The petitioner's counsel argued that the show cause notice referred to a report not provided to the petitioner and was issued by a different officer than the one who issued the cancellation order, leading to a request for quashing the order. Issue 3: Jurisdiction and participation in proceedings The Government Advocate contended that the petitioner participated in the proceedings after receiving the show cause notice, citing Section 160(2) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, to argue against the petitioner's right to question the Assistant Commissioner's jurisdiction. Judgment: The High Court found discrepancies in the records and submissions regarding the petitioner's response to the show cause notice. It concluded that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to contest the cancellation of registration. Therefore, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration. The petitioner was allowed to file a reply within two weeks, and the 1st respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing and issue a fresh order within one month. It was clarified that the petitioner would not have the benefits of registration during this period. Conclusion: The petition was disposed of with no costs, and the related applications were closed as per the terms outlined in the judgment.
|
