2024 (8) TMI 899 - HC - GST

Cancellation of petitioner s Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration with retrospective effect - the impugned order does not mention any reason for cancelling the petitioner s GST registration but merely states that the same is in reference to the SCN and that the petitioner did not appear on the date fixed for hearing - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The impugned order cancels the petitioner s GST registration with retrospective effect from 17.07.2021. However, the SCN does not mention any such proposed action. More importantly, the impugned order also does not reflect any reason for the same. It is directed that the impugned order cancelling the petitioner s GST registration would be operative with effect from 21.12.2021 and not with effect from 17.07.2021. The impugned order is modified to the aforesaid extent. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner's GST registration cancellation with retrospective effect, Compliance with GST Act provisions, SCN contents and allegations, Consideration of petitioner's explanations, Operative date of GST registration cancellation.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the cancellation of their Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration with retrospective effect through a petition. The petitioner was registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and was issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) citing non-compliance with provisions to file returns and details of outward supplies. The SCN also alleged non-compliance with the law and absence during a field visit. The petitioner was given 30 days to respond and appear before the proper officer. Subsequently, the GST registration was cancelled without specifying reasons, only referring to the SCN and the petitioner's absence during the hearing. No tax liabilities were determined in the cancellation order.

The petitioner contended that they replied to the SCN late due to business travel and requested a re-verification of their business premises. However, the cancellation order did not mention the consideration of these explanations. Importantly, the cancellation was made effective from a date earlier than mentioned in the SCN, without providing reasons for the retrospective action. The petitioner, having closed their business, was concerned about the retrospective cancellation but had filed returns belatedly.

During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel agreed to the modification of the cancellation order to make it prospective from the date of the SCN, aligning with the suspension of GST registration from the SCN issuance date. The respondents' counsel also supported this modification. Consequently, the High Court directed that the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration would be effective from the SCN date and not retrospectively as originally ordered. The Court clarified that authorities could still take necessary actions in accordance with the law, including retrospective cancellation if deemed necessary.

In conclusion, the petition was disposed of with the modification that the GST registration cancellation would be prospective from the SCN date, addressing the petitioner's concerns regarding the retrospective effect. The judgment emphasized the authorities' ability to take appropriate actions within the legal framework, including retrospective cancellation if justified.