2023 (6) TMI 1232 - HC - GST

Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - undue delay in submission of reply to SCN - non-speaking order - principles of violation of natural justice - HELD THAT - This Court is really not required to look into this question since, quite apart from the fact that the basis of show-cause notice is well known to the petitioner as may be seen from reply dated 29.05.2023, the petitioner has admittedly not appeared before officer on 22.05.2023 despite receipt of the notice well in time. Thus, the petitioner has not cooperated in the proceedings leading to suspension of registration. This is a critical aspect of the matter which militates against the petitioner's prayer for intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner appears to be suggesting that the very fact of filing of a reply should be construed as an act of grace on its part and that the reply ought to have been taken note of by the assessing authority, and that this fact deserves intervention by the Court, since the order was passed subsequent to receipt of the order - In the present case, the petitioner has neither appeared for personal hearing nor has filed reply within the timeline as stipulated by the officer. The mere fact that the reply has been filed at the will and pleasure of the petitioner, beyond the period granted by this officer would not entitle the petitioner to the relief sought. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The petitioner challenged an order of cancellation of registration under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, citing lack of specific reasons and reliance on Joint Commissioner's instructions.

Summary:

Challenge to Order of Cancellation:
The petitioner contested the cancellation order, arguing it was non-speaking and solely referenced Section 29(2)(e) of the Act. The petitioner also highlighted reliance on the Joint Commissioner's instructions for the cancellation, questioning the basis of the decision.

Contentions of the Parties:
The petitioner's counsel referred to legal precedents emphasizing the necessity of specific reasons in show-cause notices for effective response. In contrast, the respondent's counsel argued that the petitioner comprehended the grounds for cancellation as Section 29(2)(e) clearly addresses fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts.

Petitioner's Response:
The petitioner's reply acknowledged a change in the principal place of business without proper notification, indicating an error on their part. Additionally, the reply mentioned an inspection regarding the valuation of second-hand goods, demonstrating awareness of the events leading to the notice issuance.

Court's Decision:
Despite the petitioner's submission of supporting documents and a request for restoration of registration, the Court noted the lack of cooperation in the proceedings. The delay in filing the reply beyond the stipulated timeline and failure to attend the officer's hearing were critical factors leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.

Conclusion:
The Court declined intervention due to the petitioner's non-compliance with procedural requirements and lack of cooperation in the assessment proceedings. The dismissal of the petition was based on the petitioner's failure to adhere to the timeline and participate effectively in the regulatory process.