2024 (10) TMI 1309 - HC - GST

Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner with retrospective effect - closure of business - HELD THAT - The order rejecting the application for cancellation of registration, the SCN as well as the final order, have failed to assign or record any substantive reasons in support of the ultimate conclusion. It has instead proceeded to reject the application for cancellation on the solitary ground that the reply of the taxpayer has not been found satisfactory and had simultaneously issued a SCN and a final order of cancellation of registration merely stating as follows - others . In the absence of any reasoning adduced in the order rejecting the application for cancellation of registration, the SCN or the final order of cancellation of registration, the instant writ petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to cancel the GST registration of the petitioner with effect from 06 August 2024. Petition disposed off.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for GST registration cancellation was justified.
2. Whether the retrospective cancellation of GST registration was valid under the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017.
3. Whether the procedural requirements for issuing a Show Cause Notice (SCN) and cancellation order were met.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Application for GST Registration Cancellation:
The petitioner sought the cancellation of its GST registration effective from 06 August 2024, due to the closure of its business. However, the respondent rejected this application on 20 August 2024, stating that "the reply of the taxpayer has not been found satisfactory." The court observed that the order rejecting the application failed to provide substantive reasons for the rejection, merely citing the unsatisfactory nature of the taxpayer's reply. The lack of detailed reasoning in the rejection order was a significant procedural lapse, rendering the decision unsustainable.

2. Retrospective Cancellation of GST Registration:
The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled retrospectively with effect from 02 April 2024, as per an order dated 13 September 2024. The court referenced previous judgments, including Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax and Ramesh Chander vs. Assistant Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax, which emphasized that retrospective cancellation of registration must be reasoned and demonstrate due application of mind. The court highlighted that Section 29(2) of the CGST Act requires that the reasons for cancellation be clearly stated and that such power should not be exercised mechanically or routinely. The absence of specific reasons in the cancellation order led the court to conclude that the retrospective cancellation was unjustified.

3. Procedural Requirements for SCN and Cancellation Order:
The petitioner was issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) on 20 August 2024, which vaguely cited "others" as the reason for potential cancellation. The court noted that neither the SCN nor the final cancellation order provided adequate reasons or clarity, failing to meet the procedural requirements for such actions. The court reiterated that an SCN must specify the grounds for cancellation and provide the taxpayer an opportunity to respond adequately. The court's analysis of similar cases, such as Delhi Polymers vs. Commissioner, Trade and Taxes, reinforced the necessity for objective criteria and clarity in both SCN and cancellation orders.

Conclusion:
The court found that the respondent's actions in rejecting the cancellation application and issuing a retrospective cancellation order were procedurally flawed due to a lack of substantive reasoning. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent to cancel the GST registration of the petitioner with effect from 06 August 2024. The writ petition was disposed of in these terms, emphasizing the importance of adherence to procedural norms and the provision of clear reasons in administrative decisions.

← Previous Next →