9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 1070 - HC - GSTCancellation of GST Registration - Vague SCN issued to petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - On 06.08.2022, a notice was given by the respondent to the petitioner, it is Annexure No. 2. It is definitely vague, it require the petitioner to appear before the undersigned on 19.08.2022 at 12 57. There is no undersigned. Name and designation have not been mentioned in the notice. By reading this document, one cannot ascertain, as to who signed it? It is admitted that initially 19.08.2022 was not holiday. It was subsequently declared a holiday. The notification is Annexure No. 5 to the petition. Thereafter, it is not the case of the respondent that they issued any other notice to the petitioner of the date when the petitioner could have appeared before the respondent authority/competent officer. Simply the order, cancellation of the registration has been passed on 23.08.2022. It is in non-compliance of the provision of Section 29(2) proviso, which requires that such registration may not be cancelled unless the person has been afforded an opportunity of hearing. This Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 23.08.2022 and the notice dated 06.08.2022 are not in accordance with law. They deserve to be set aside - Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
The challenge to a show cause notice for cancellation of GST Registration and the subsequent cancellation order. Details of Judgment: Issue 1: Vagueness of Notice and Lack of Opportunity for Hearing The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled without being given an opportunity of hearing. The notice issued was vague, not specifying whom the petitioner should meet or providing an alternative date for appearance. The respondent claimed attempts were made to contact the petitioner for inspection, but the petitioner was unreachable. Issue 2: Violation of Provisions of the Act The petitioner argued a violation of Rule 25 of The Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, which requires physical verification in the presence of the person. The respondent failed to upload the inspection report as mandated. Section 29(2) of the Act mandates an opportunity of hearing before cancellation, which was not provided in this case. Issue 3: Contradictory Statements in the Impugned Order The impugned order stated contradictory information regarding the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice, indicating a lack of clarity and procedural errors in the cancellation process. Key Legal References: - Rule 25 mandates physical verification in the presence of the person. - Section 29(2) requires an opportunity of hearing before registration cancellation. - Section 169 outlines methods of serving notices under the Act. Court Decision: The High Court found the cancellation order and show cause notice to be non-compliant with the law due to lack of opportunity for hearing and procedural irregularities. Both the cancellation order and the show cause notice were quashed, and the writ petition was allowed.
|
