2023 (8) TMI 238 - HC - GST

Cancellation of registration of petitioner - allegation is that the registration has been obtained by means of fraud, wilfull misstatement or suppression of facts - HELD THAT - This court in the case of SARVODAY IMPEX VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2023 (6) TMI 632 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT in an identical matter relying on a decision of the coordinate bench of this court in the case of AGGARWAL DYEING AND PRINTING WORKS VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT 2 OTHER (S) 2022 (4) TMI 864 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT where it was held that According to the learned AGP, it is in such circumstances that the show cause notices and impugned orders without any details are being forwarded to the dealers. This hardly can be a valid explanation for the purpose of issuing such vague show cause notices and vague final orders cancelling the registration. Since the present petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid order, the impugned notice being cryptic and without reasons deserves to be quashed and set aside - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to show-cause notice for cancellation of registration based on fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts.

Details:
The petitioner challenged the show-cause notice, claiming it violated principles of natural justice as it was vague and did not specify the case against the petitioner, hindering the ability to respond effectively. Reference was made to a previous court decision with similar circumstances. The respondent did not dispute the legal principles laid down in the previous decision and agreed that the facts of the present case would be governed by that decision.

The court referred to a previous decision in a similar matter where it was noted that show-cause notices lacked specific details necessary for a proper response, rendering the process a mere formality. Technical glitches were cited as the reason for vague notices and orders. Another case highlighted the inadequacy of a show-cause notice that did not allow for a proper response or hearing before cancellation of registration.

The court found that the show-cause notice in the present case was cryptic and lacked reasons, leading to its quashing. The respondent authorities were directed to issue a fresh notice with detailed reasons, provide a fair hearing, and restore the petitioner's registration. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to respond to the new notice with necessary documents. The court clarified that it had not examined the merits of the case, focusing solely on the deficiencies in the notice.

In conclusion, the petition was allowed, and the original show-cause notice was quashed. The respondent was given the liberty to issue a fresh notice with specific reasons, conduct a fair hearing, and make a decision in accordance with the law. The petitioner was instructed to restore the registration promptly and respond to the new notice if needed. The court emphasized that it had not delved into the merits of the case, only addressing the procedural issues with the notice.