9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 656 - HC - GSTCancellation of petitioner's registration - vague SCN - opportunity of hearing not provided - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The reason shown in SCN requires no further emphasis as it is vague and delphic and therefore, show-cause notice gives no scope for the petitioner to give an affective reply. Still, the petitioner submitted his explanation/objections on 20.06.2023 giving certain details therein, which in our view need not be discussed at length as the show-cause notice itself suffers the vice of obscurity. That apart, the particulars such as designation and office of the issuing authority are also not mentioned in the show-cause notice - these defects themselves are sufficient to strike down the notice at the threshold. It is also constraining to hold that this is not the first occasion where these type of show-cause notices are being issued by the concerned authorities without clearly mentioning the reason for issuing such notice and without mentioning the particulars of issuing authority. The impugned show-cause notice is set aside and consequently, the registration of the petitioner is restored with immediate effect - petition allowed.
Issues involved:
The challenge in the writ petition is to the impugned proceedings issued under Rules 22(1) and Sub-Rule (2A) of 21 of GST Act, seeking show-cause for cancellation of registration of the petitioner's GSTIN No. 37AATCA9148B1ZD. Details of the Judgment: Issue 1: Clarity of Show-Cause Notice The petitioner's counsel argued that the show-cause notice was vague and lacked clarity, depriving the petitioner of the opportunity to submit a proper objection or explanation. The notice did not specify the issuing authority clearly, causing confusion regarding whether it was issued by the Central Authority under CGST Act or the State Authority under AP GST Act, 2017. Despite the lack of clarity, the petitioner submitted his explanation on the same day of receiving the notice. The Court noted that the reason for issuing the show-cause notice was cryptic and undiscernible, citing "Non-compliance of any specified provisions in the GST Act or the Rules made thereunder as may be prescribed" as the reason. The Court held that the notice was vague and lacked essential particulars, such as the designation and office of the issuing authority, which rendered it invalid. Issue 2: Authority of the Show-Cause Notice The Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC informed the Court that the show-cause notice did not originate from the office of the Assistant Deputy Commissioner (Central Taxes), Tirupati Division, or any other Central Authority. This raised doubts about the authenticity and validity of the notice. Judgment The Court acknowledged the defects in the show-cause notice, emphasizing the need for clarity and specificity in such communications to avoid causing hardship to the concerned parties. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned show-cause notice under Rules 22(1) and Sub-Rule (2A) of 21, and restoring the registration of the petitioner with immediate effect. The Court directed the concerned authority to issue a fresh show-cause notice with all necessary and relevant particulars for the petitioner to respond adequately. No costs were imposed, and any pending interlocutory applications in the case were closed as a result of the judgment.
|
