2024 (8) TMI 898 - HC - GST

Cancellation of GST registration - petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation, being cancelled retrospectively with effect from 29.11.2019 - petitioner submits that the petitioner s registration be cancelled with effect from 01.10.2022 and not from a date prior to that - HELD THAT - It is settled law that cancellation of GST registration does not affect the taxpayer s liability under relevant enactments. It also does not preclude the concerned authority from initiating proceedings for any statutory violation or for recovery of dues from the taxpayer. Considering that the petitioner has stopped carrying on its business, the petitioner s application for cancellation of his GST registration is required to be allowed. However, the petitioner is required to furnish the documents evidencing its address for future correspondence and KYC documents, to the satisfaction of the proper officer. It is considered apposite to direct the proper officer to reconsider the petitioner s application for cancellation of its GST registration with effect from 01.10.2022 - the petitioner shall, within a period of two weeks from date, furnish documents evidencing its future correspondence address as well as KYC documents. The proper officer, if satisfied with the same, shall proceed to allow the petitioner s application. The petiiton is disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeks cancellation of GST registration, rejection of various orders, ultra vires declaration of forms, retrospective cancellation, non-submission of required documents, rejection of revocation application.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a sole proprietorship trading concern, sought cancellation of its GST registration, which was rejected due to non-submission of necessary documents despite repeated notices. The rejection led to a subsequent show cause notice proposing cancellation on grounds of fraud, followed by retrospective cancellation. The petitioner then applied for revocation, which was also rejected due to non-compliance with document submission requirements.

The court noted that the cancellation of registration does not absolve the taxpayer from liabilities or preclude authorities from initiating proceedings for statutory violations or dues recovery. However, considering the petitioner had ceased business operations, the court directed the proper officer to reconsider the cancellation application from the requested date, subject to submission of required documents for future correspondence and KYC compliance.

The judgment emphasized that allowing the cancellation application does not exempt the petitioner from tax liabilities or statutory obligations. The authorities retain the right to pursue any pending issues or initiate proceedings for violations or recovery of dues. The court disposed of the petition with the directive for the proper officer to reassess the cancellation application upon fulfillment of document submission requirements within a specified timeframe.