2024 (2) TMI 239 - HC - GST

Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - failure to pay any amount of tax, interest or penalty to the account of the Central/State Government beyond a period of three months from the date on which such payment becomes due - HELD THAT - It is noticed from several petitions that are filed before this Court that all orders and notices which bear digital signatures display the name of DS Goods and Services Tax Network 07 . Reference is also drawn by learned counsel for the petitioner to an order passed by the High Court of the Judicature at Bombay in DBS Tradelink and Advisors Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2022 (7) TMI 1229 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT which refers to an order of Gujarat High Court dated 24.02.2022 2022 (4) TMI 864 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , pointing out to similar infirmities in the issuance of notices and orders. A direction was issued to the respondents to set their house in order. It appears that despite lapses of nearly two years, no remedial steps have been taken by the respondents. The Principal Commissioner, Goods and Services Tax/Special Commissioner, Goods and Services Tax as well as the Director of DS Goods and Services Limited is requested to be connected through video conference on the next date of hearing i.e. 22.02.2024 at 12 30 PM.

Summary

Issues:

The petitioner challenges the retrospective cancellation of registration based on alleged failure to pay tax, interest, or penalty beyond the specified period.

Impugned Order and Grounds:

The petitioner contests an order cancelling registration retrospectively from 01.07.2017, citing a show cause notice alleging failure to pay taxes within the stipulated time. The petitioner argues that the notice lacked clarity on the authority to appear before and the cancellation order did not provide adequate reasoning.

Contentions of the Petitioner:

The petitioner's counsel highlights discrepancies in the cancellation order, noting that despite the allegation of non-payment, the order required zero payment from the petitioner. Moreover, the officer mentioned in the order was not authorized to issue such directives, and the digital signature raised authenticity concerns.

Judicial Observations and Directions:

The court acknowledges systemic issues with digital signatures and points out previous cases highlighting similar deficiencies in notices and orders. Noting the lack of remedial action by the authorities over two years, the court directs the concerned officials to address these lapses. A video conference is scheduled for further discussion, involving key officials and legal representatives for communication and necessary actions.

Conclusion:

The court grants exemption to the petitioner, subject to exceptions, and emphasizes the need for rectifying procedural irregularities in issuing orders and notices with digital signatures. The order is to be communicated to the relevant parties through designated legal representatives for compliance.