9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 914 - HC - GSTViolation of principles of natural justice - defective SCN - Cancellation of registration of petitioner - HELD THAT - The SCN itself is defective and does not contain necessary foundation on the strength of which impugned action could have been taken after 08.07.2022. Thus, communication through email to the petitioner will not improve the case of the respondents. In nutshell, the SCN lacks minimum details to establish that after 08.07.2022, the respondents received any adverse material which formed basis of show cause notice and Order-in-Original. In this backdrop, we find substance in the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that if appropriate show cause notice is issued and he may be given an opportunity, it will meet the ends of justice. The SCN and Order-in-Original are set aside - petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
Challenge to Order-in-Original No.16 of 2024 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Detailed Analysis: 1. Challenge to Order-in-Original: The petitioner filed a petition challenging Order-in-Original No.16 of 2024, dated 19.03.2024, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, who previously operated a ginning mill, had applied for cancellation of registration. The Department issued an order for cancellation on 08.07.2022. However, the petitioner later discovered that a show cause notice had been issued and affixed to the walls of the closed industry, which the petitioner did not receive due to the closure of the business. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without following principles of natural justice. 2. Contentions of the Petitioner: The petitioner contended that the show cause notice did not mention any new material that led to a change in decision from the cancellation order issued earlier. The petitioner emphasized that all the information mentioned in the Order-in-Original was known to the Department before the cancellation order was granted. The petitioner requested an opportunity to present a defense if given a chance. 3. Arguments by Respondent: The Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC argued that the GST Act allows the Department to make a different decision than the one taken during registration cancellation. Additionally, the Counsel highlighted that communication through email was valid even if the industry was closed. 4. Court's Analysis: The Court observed that the show cause notice lacked essential details to establish that new adverse material, post the cancellation order, formed the basis for the notice and subsequent Order-in-Original. The Court found the show cause notice defective and lacking necessary foundation for the impugned action. Consequently, the Court set aside the show cause notice dated 27.12.2023 and the Order-in-Original dated 19.03.2024. The respondents were granted liberty to issue an appropriate show cause notice, allowing the petitioner to present defenses. 5. Disposition: The Court disposed of the Writ Petition without expressing any opinion on the merits and without imposing costs. Any pending interlocutory applications were also closed. The judgment emphasized the importance of providing a proper show cause notice and an opportunity for the petitioner to present defenses to ensure justice. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments presented by the parties, the Court's evaluation of the issues raised, and the ultimate decision rendered by the Court.
|
