9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 890X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the registration certificate, issued under the Act - the registration of the petitioner shall be restored. Given the circumstances in which the petitioner was placed, on account of the actions of the respondent/revenue, no interest or penalty will be levied on account of delay in filing the pending returns - Petition disposed off. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeals-I, Delhi. 4. It requires to be noticed that the order via which the registration was cancelled is dated 06.08.2021. We may also note that the edifice on which the impugned action is based i.e., the action concerning cancellation of registration, is the show cause notice ["SCN"] dated 08.07.2021. 5. The relevant part of the SCN dated 08.07.2021 is appended on page 38 of the case file, which reads as follows: "Whereas on the basis of information which has come to my notice, it appears that your registration is liable to be cancelled for the following reasons: 1 Others You are hereby directed to furnish a reply to the notice within seven working days from the date of service of this notice. You are hereby directed to appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation was cancelled. 11. The reason, perhaps, is that the SCN dated 08.07.2021, as noted above, did not advert to any reason as to why the impugned action was proposed. 12. It appears, that thereupon, and in and about 21.10.2021 the petitioner filed an application for revocation of the cancellation order. It is qua this application, that the SCN dated 17.11.2021 was issued; a procedure which is not contemplated under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [in short, the "CGST Act"]. 12.1 Be that as it may, this SCN, which was issued pursuant to the petitioner filing an application for revocation of cancellation, inter alia sated the following: "Reason for revocation of cancellation-Others (Please specify)- During PV conducted on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent from the record, the explanation given by the petitioner consortium, that it had shifted its place of business, was not dealt with in the order dated 08.12.2021. 17. Being aggrieved, the petitioner consortium preferred an appeal. The appeal, as noted above, was disposed of by the Joint Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Appeals-I, Delhi via the order dated 22.02.2022. 17.1 The appellate authority sustained the order cancelling the petitioner-consortium's registration. 18. According to the first appellate authority, the petitioner-consortium had not been able to suffice the cause [sic: to show sufficient cause] for revoking the order directing the cancellation of registration. 18.1 That said, what has emerged with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isit its position." 4. As would be evident from the extracts of the proceedings held on 30.08.2022, we had asked Mr Rajesh Jain, who appears for the petitioner, as to whether the vakalatnama had been executed in his favor by the liquidator appointed by the NCLT. 4.1 Mr Jain has answered in the affirmative. 4.2 We have examined the record. 4.3 The vakalatnama executed by Mr Anil Mehta, Liquidator (Pratibha Industries Ltd) ["PIL"] in favor of Mr Jain, is on the Court record. 5. Insofar as the other part of the directions is concerned, which is that we had asked Mr Anish Roy to take instructions, as to whether the respondent/revenue would like to revisit its position, Mr Roy says that the respondent/revenue will reexamine the issue, as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we are of the view, that the impugned order cannot be sustained for the following reasons. (i) Firstly, the SCN dated 08.07.2021 gave no clue whatsoever, as to what was the infraction committed by the petitioner-consortium, and hence the case/allegation it had to meet. (ii) Secondly, although inspection of PIL's premises was carried out on 05.07.2021, it did not find mention in the SCN dated 08.07.2021. Besides this, no notice of physical inspection was given. The concerned authority, having exercised this option under Rule 25 of the CGST Rules, 2017, it had to give notice. [See judgement dated 26.04.2022, passed in W.P (C) 8451/2021, titled Micro Focus Software Solutions India Pvt Ltd. vs. Union of India & Anr; judgement dated 26.08.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
