9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 519 - HC - GSTCancellation of registration of GST - violation of Section 29(2)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Admittedly, respondent no. 2 is the proper person as envisaged under the said section and he has the necessary jurisdiction to make inquiry regarding the cancellation or suspension of registration of GST and he is also authorised to pass necessary orders. It is possible in the course of his work, a notice might have been issued under erroneous provision of law. Petitioner no. 1 is having the liberty to reply to the said notice. Petitioner no. 1 is also having the liberty to take up such contention including the jurisdictional aspect in its reply before respondent no. 2. Petitioner no. 1 can also plead any amendments which are required for the existing trade name. If petitioner no. 1 is able to show that the authorised person is not proceeding under the correct provision of law, the authorised person also has the liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. What has been issued in the instant case is only a show cause notice, requesting petitioner no. 1 for clarification and supporting documents regarding the allegations made against it. It is for the authorities concerned (respondent no. 2) to hear the party concerned and pass orders in accordance with law. It would be premature for this Court to interfere in the said proceedings at this particular stage itself. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Jurisdiction of respondent to initiate proceedings for cancellation of GST registration based on alleged violation of Section 29(2)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Analysis: The petitioners, a private limited company, were aggrieved by a show cause notice issued by respondent no. 2 seeking to cancel their GST registration based on a complaint by a third party. The petitioners argued that respondent no. 2 lacked jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings and that the notice did not clearly specify the alleged violation of Section 29(2)(a) of the CGST Act by the petitioners. The respondents, represented by the HCGP, justified the proceedings and sought dismissal of the writ petition. The core issue revolved around the discrepancy in the trade name of the petitioner company, C. Krishniah Chetty & Co. Pvt. Ltd., and another entity, C. Krishniah Chetty & Sons Pvt. Ltd., leading to disputes between the two companies. Respondent no. 2 initiated the action based on this discrepancy, alleging that the petitioner company could not have a trade name matching that of the other entity. Section 29(2) of the CGST Act empowers the proper officer to cancel registration for contravention of prescribed provisions, among other reasons, with the requirement of giving the person an opportunity to be heard. The court acknowledged that respondent no. 2 had the necessary jurisdiction to inquire into the cancellation or suspension of GST registration and to issue notices, even if there might have been an error in the provision of law cited in the notice. The court emphasized that the show cause notice was merely a request for clarification and supporting documents from the petitioners, providing them with the opportunity to respond and contest the allegations, including jurisdictional aspects. The court held that it would be premature to interfere in the proceedings at that stage and directed the petitioners to appear before respondent no. 2 to file their reply, with the respondent required to pass appropriate orders expeditiously in accordance with the law. In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition, instructing the parties to follow the procedural requirements and allowing the authorities to hear the petitioners and make decisions in accordance with the law. The court's decision highlighted the importance of due process and the opportunity for parties to present their case before any final orders are issued.
|
