9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 907 - HC - GSTViolation of principles of natural justice - cancellation of registration without providing reasons in the order - petitioner was not submitting his quarterly return - HELD THAT - Since in the present case, the basis for initiating action was non-filing of return, as alleged in the show cause notice, subsection (2) of the Section 29 is applicable. The proper officer is empowered to cancel registration of a person if he is satisfied that any of the conditions stipulated in Section 29(2)(b) are attracted - The order impugned is completely non speaking and does not record and reason why the registration has been cancelled. The impugned order is set aside. Case is remanded to concerned authority for consideration afresh and to pass appropriate order(s) in accordance with law - Petition is allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Cancellation of registration without providing reasons in the order. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the cancellation of registration order dated 30.12.2022, arguing that it lacked any reasons for the cancellation, rendering it non-speaking. The respondent contended that a show cause notice was issued on 08.11.2022 due to the petitioner's failure to submit quarterly returns, and as no reply was received, the cancellation order was passed. The court noted that the power of cancellation under Section 29 of the CGST Act necessitates proper reasoning in the order, which was absent in this case. The court emphasized that the cancellation order significantly impacts a person's right to conduct business and must adhere to the grounds specified in Section 29 of the CGST Act. The order in question, being non-speaking, failed to provide any rationale for the cancellation, contrary to the statutory requirement. The court highlighted the provisions of Section 29(2)(b) which empower the proper officer to cancel registration if certain conditions are met, such as non-filing of returns beyond the prescribed period. Consequently, the court decided to set aside the cancellation order solely due to its non-speaking nature, without delving into the merits of the case. The matter was remanded to the concerned authority for reconsideration and issuance of a new order in compliance with the law. The petitioner was granted one month to submit a reply if desired, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.
|
