2021 (12) TMI 226 - HC - GST

Cancellation of registration of petitioner - cancellation on the ground that the same has been obtained by means of fraud, willful misstatement and suppression of the facts - HELD THAT - It emerges from the material on record that the application for revocation has been preferred by the petitioner on 16.08.2019, no procedure has been followed thereafter by the proper Officer and he has chosen not to issue any notice to show cause indicating his intention of rejection. When the statutory Rules provide for prescribed limit, he could not have simply sat tight over this application without doing anything in that regard and without fail he shall need to complete this process within one week from the date of receipt of the copy. Noticing the fact that it is only after he decides not to accede to the request of revocation of cancellation that such a stage would come at that eventuality be also taken note of once the Officer chose not to allow the request straightaway he would have further period of 4 (four) weeks, 1 (one) week for issuance of notice and availing time to petitioner of one week as also to allow him representation and then 2 (two) weeks thereafter for him to decide finally. However, in the event he is agreed with the request of revocation of cancellation, the same shall be decided in a week s time. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Cancellation of GST registration on grounds of fraud and suppression of facts.
2. Non-compliance with prescribed procedures under CGST Rules, 2017 for cancellation and revocation of registration.
3. Delay in decision-making and lack of communication by the tax authorities.
4. Legal remedies sought by the petitioner for quashing the cancellation order and revocation of GST number.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The petitioner, a proprietary firm dealing in scraps, had its GST registration cancelled due to alleged fraud and willful misstatement. The cancellation notice was issued without physical receipt by the petitioner, leading to a show cause notice for cancellation on the grounds mentioned.

Issue 2: The cancellation of registration was done without following the due procedure as prescribed under CGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner applied for revocation of the cancellation, but no response was received, and the matter remained undecided for a considerable period. The Court highlighted the procedural lapses and the necessity for adherence to the prescribed timelines.

Issue 3: The tax authorities failed to communicate the reasons for cancellation and the status of the revocation application, causing a delay in decision-making. The petitioner raised grievances through the Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS) seeking resolution.

Issue 4: The petitioner approached the Court seeking a writ of mandamus to quash the cancellation order and immediate revocation of the GST number. The Court directed the authorities to adhere to the prescribed procedures and timelines for decision-making. The judgment emphasized the importance of procedural compliance and timely communication in such matters.

This detailed analysis covers the procedural irregularities, delays, legal remedies sought, and the Court's directives in the judgment regarding the cancellation and revocation of GST registration.