9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 1370 - HC - GSTCancellation of registration granted to the petitioner - failure to file returns for a continuous period of six months - Validity of SCN issued - HELD THAT - This writ petition is liable to be allowed. The show cause notice issued to the petitioner in this case is produced as Ext.P1. A perusal of Ext.P1 shows that the same has been issued in Form GST Reg 31, which is the form for issuing a notice regarding suspension of registration - The notice is absolutely vague and it is not clearly specified with any clarity, the reasons for proposing cancellation even the period for which there was alleged failure to file returns is not specified. The quashing of the impugned order of cancellation will not have the effect of absolving the petitioner of any fiscal liability. The petitioner will be required to file all defaulted returns together with tax, late fee, interest, penalty etc., within a period of two weeks from the date on which the registration of the petitioner is restored in compliance with this judgment - Petition allowed.
Issues:
1. Cancellation of registration under CGST / SGST Acts due to failure to file returns for six months. 2. Appellate authority's power to interfere with cancellation order under Section 29 and application for revocation under Section 30 of CGST / SGST Acts. 3. Validity of cancellation order due to lack of document identification number. 4. Interpretation of statutory provisions and principles in fiscal legislations. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the cancellation of registration due to failure to file returns for six months. The show cause notice (Ext.P1) lacked clarity in specifying reasons and period of non-compliance. The court found the notice issued in the wrong form (GST REG-31), contrary to Rule 21, rendering the cancellation order without jurisdiction. Citing legal precedents, the court held the action of cancellation as invalid and allowed the writ petition, quashing the cancellation order (Ext.P2). 2. The petitioner argued that the appellate authority erred in rejecting the appeal, contending that the authority has the power to interfere with cancellation orders. Referring to Supreme Court judgments, the petitioner claimed that the application for revocation under Section 30 is not mandatory but directory. The court agreed with the petitioner, emphasizing the need for strict compliance with statutory procedures and the appellate authority's power to review cancellation orders. 3. The petitioner raised the issue of the cancellation order lacking a document identification number, citing legal provisions and circulars mandating such identification. The court found this deficiency significant, further supporting the invalidity of the cancellation order. The lack of proper documentation was deemed a procedural flaw affecting the legality of the cancellation decision. 4. The judgment highlighted the interpretation of statutory provisions in fiscal legislations, emphasizing the need for strict construction in favor of the assessee in case of doubt or ambiguity. The court differentiated between provisions related to cancellation and revocation of registration, emphasizing the specific purpose and context of such provisions. Legal principles regarding the interpretation of taxing statutes and exemptions were discussed to support the decision in favor of the petitioner. In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the cancellation order, and directed the petitioner to comply with filing returns and related obligations upon restoration of registration. The judgment emphasized adherence to procedural requirements, statutory interpretations, and principles governing fiscal legislations in deciding the case.
|
