9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 833 - HC - GSTCancellation of CGST registration - defective Show Cause Notice - HELD THAT - Learned counsel for the petitioner inter-alia submits that since there were no details of the alleged invoices or bills which were made without supply of goods or services provided the petitioner was precluded from filing a reply to the Show Cause Notice. Thus, order dated 23.12.2021 is set aside. Respondents are directed to furnish all material that they possess in support of the Show Cause Notice dated 05.11.2021 to the petitioner within one week. Petitioner shall file a reply within a period of seven working days thereof. Respondents shall thereafter adjudicate the Show Cause Notice in accordance with law within a maximum period of two weeks of filing of the reply. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor committed on the merits of contentions of either party. Proper Officer shall adjudicate the Show Cause Notice uninfluenced by anything stated in this order on merits. He shall pass a detailed speaking order after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms
Issues Involved:
The petitioner seeks quashing of the order cancelling CGST registration due to a defective Show Cause Notice lacking details of alleged invoices without supply of goods or services. Summary: The petitioner's counsel argued that the Show Cause Notice was flawed as it did not specify the invoices or bills issued without an underlying supply, preventing the petitioner from responding. The respondent's counsel agreed to provide necessary details and re-adjudicate the matter. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to furnish all relevant material to the petitioner within a week for a reply within seven working days. The respondents were instructed to adjudicate the Show Cause Notice within two weeks of receiving the reply, emphasizing that the court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case. The Proper Officer was tasked with issuing a detailed order after a personal hearing, with the petitioner retaining the right to pursue further legal remedies if dissatisfied with subsequent decisions. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
|
