9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 1246 - HC - GSTSeeking restoration of the GST registration of the petitioner that has been cancelled - registration was obtained by mis-statement or suppression of facts - no opportunity of hearing granted - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - In the facts of the present case since petitioner has responded to the show cause notice and filed a reply which is not in commensurate with the reasons mentioned for the cancellation, an opportunity needs to be granted to the petitioner to file a detailed response to the show cause notice and thereafter for the authorities to re-adjudicate the show cause notice. The cancellation order dated 21.07.2023 is set aside. Petitioner is granted one week s time to file a detailed response to the show cause notice. Thereafter, the authority shall dispose of the show cause notice within a period of 30 days. Petitioner shall also be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing. Petition disposed off.
Issues involved: Restoration of GST registration u/s cancellation order lacking details, availability of information on portal, petitioner's response to show cause notice, filing of detailed response, application for revocation of cancellation.
The petitioner sought restoration of their GST registration that was cancelled by an order dated 21.07.2023, contending that the show cause notice leading to the cancellation did not provide essential details regarding the alleged misstatement or suppression of facts. The petitioner argued that the notice lacked specifics of the fraud and did not disclose the name or designation of the officer requiring their appearance. Upon perusal of the record, it was observed that the petitioner had responded to the show cause notice, requesting time to reply due to being out of station. However, no further response was submitted by the petitioner thereafter. The respondent claimed that all necessary information, including detailed reasons for the action, was available on the portal accessible to taxpayers, while the petitioner disputed this assertion, stating that only the show cause notice was uploaded without additional information. The respondent produced a screenshot from the portal and a report from the Deputy Commissioner (AE) CGST, Delhi (North) to support their actions. In contrast, the petitioner relied on a rent agreement dated 27.12.2022 related to the subject property. The petitioner had not filed a detailed response to the show cause notice, and the respondent mentioned that an application for revocation of the cancellation had been filed by the petitioner, with the prescribed disposal period of 30 days yet to lapse. While acknowledging the deficiencies in the show cause notice highlighted by the petitioner's counsel, the Court noted that since the petitioner had responded to the notice with a reply that did not align with the reasons for cancellation, an opportunity should be granted for the petitioner to submit a detailed response. Consequently, the cancellation order was set aside, and the petitioner was given one week to file a comprehensive reply. The authority was directed to dispose of the show cause notice within 30 days, providing the petitioner with a chance for a personal hearing. Additionally, the competent authority was permitted to conduct a fresh inspection of the subject property if necessary. The judgment clarified that the Court did not assess or comment on the merits of either party's contentions, reserving all rights and contentions for the parties involved.
|
