2024 (7) TMI 50 - HC - GST

Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - petitioner was unaware of the impugned order dated 04.05.2023 that was passed, since it was host in the GST common portal - HELD THAT - The Court is of the view that this is a fit case for quashing the impugned order and remitting back the case to the respondent to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law as admittedly the demand pertains to July 2017 to March 2018 and the impugned order has been passed after the death of the petitioner s father. Since the petitioner may be liable to be taxed as legal representative/heir of his father in terms of under Section 93 of the respective GST enactments, the Court is of the view that the petitioner should be given a proper opportunity to defend the tax liability. Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. GST registration cancellation after the death of the registered dealer.
2. Allegation of unawareness of impugned order and failure to participate in proceedings due to illness.
3. Submission of certificate by the petitioner to explain Input Tax Credit mismatch.
4. Quashing of the impugned order and remitting the case back to the respondent for fresh orders.
5. Direction to serve notice to petitioner and reply within a specified period.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The petitioner, as the legal heir of the deceased assessee, applied for the cancellation of GST registration after the death of the registered dealer, the petitioner's father. The registration was subsequently cancelled with effect from a specified date.

Issue 2: The petitioner claimed unawareness of the impugned order passed and failure to participate in the proceedings due to illness. The petitioner alleged that the notice preceding the order was hosted on the GST common portal, which was not noticed.

Issue 3: The respondent submitted that the petitioner obtained a certificate from a Chartered Accountant to explain the purported mismatch of Input Tax Credit availed by the deceased father before his death.

Issue 4: The court, after considering submissions, quashed the impugned order and remitted the case back to the respondent for fresh orders. The court emphasized the need for the petitioner to be given a proper opportunity to defend the tax liability as the demand pertained to a period after the death of the petitioner's father.

Issue 5: The respondent was directed to serve a copy of the notice preceding the impugned order to the petitioner within a specified period. The petitioner was expected to reply to the show cause notice within two months, and the respondent was to pass fresh orders expeditiously, preferably within three months thereafter.

In conclusion, the writ petition was allowed, with no costs imposed, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. The judgment focused on ensuring procedural fairness and providing the petitioner with an opportunity to address the tax liability issues arising after the death of the registered dealer.