9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 406 - HC - GSTCancellation of registration granted to the petitioner - It is a specific case of the petitioner that no such notice was issued and the only notice issued to the petitioner was one regarding the suspension of his registration in Form REG-31 - HELD THAT - The matter is remitted to the 1st respondent to complete the proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law. As a consequence of this order, the registration of the petitioner which was canceled by Ext.P4 order will stand restored till a fresh decision is taken by the 1st respondent. This writ petition is allowed.
Issues: Challenge to registration cancellation under CGST/SGST Act without proper notice.
In this judgment, the petitioner challenged the cancellation of their registration under the provisions of the CGST/SGST Act without receiving a show cause notice as required by Section 29 read with Rule 22. The petitioner contended that they were entitled to a show cause notice in Form REG-17 before the cancellation of registration, but only received a notice regarding the suspension of registration in Form REG-31. The court noted that the show cause notice in Form REG-17 was not issued to the petitioner, which the Senior Government Pleader admitted. The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the cancellation order (Ext.P4), and remitted the matter to the 1st respondent for further consideration in compliance with the law. The court emphasized the importance of following due process and legal requirements in cancellation proceedings under the CGST/SGST Act. Despite the absence of the requisite show cause notice in Form REG-17, the court acknowledged the submission made by the Senior Government Pleader that the necessary notice should have been automatically generated. However, the court decided not to focus on technicalities and instead directed the 1st respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner in line with the law. As a consequence of the judgment, the registration of the petitioner, which was canceled by Ext.P4 order, was restored until a fresh decision was taken by the 1st respondent. Importantly, the court clarified that the quashing of Ext.P4 did not prevent the 1st respondent from initiating or continuing proceedings for the cancellation of registration against the petitioner, as long as it was done in accordance with the law.
|
