9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 854X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed on the ground of principle of natural justice. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d its obligations of tax, more than what is payable. 9. The petitioner fulfilled its obligation to discharge the tax dues. Aggrieved by the cryptic order and non-availability of the opportunity of hearing, the petitioner is before this court seeking the following reliefs: "6. The Petitioner prays that this Court may: (A) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the Order-in-Appeal, with F. No. V2 (APL-01)/123/VDR-I/2022-23 dated 22.08.2022 (Annexure-B) passed by the Respondent and revoke the cancellation of the Petitioner's GST registration no. 24AACGR0752L1Z9; (B) Issue a writ of mandamus and in the nature of mandamus and direct Respondents to revoke the cancellation of Petitioner's GST Registration No 24AACGR0752LIZ9; (C) In the pendency of the present proceedings, until final disposal, revoke the cancellation of the Petitioner's GST registration vide Order-in-Original No. ZA241221035883T dated 09.12.2021; (D) Pass ad-interim orders in terms of Paragraphs 6B & 11C; (E) Pass any other orders deemed appropriate in the interests of justice." 10. The Court on 24.11.2022 issued notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner has not filed GSTR-3B returns since February-2021 and did not bother to furnish a proper explanation to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner despite being given an opportunity therefore, the respondent No.4 assigned proper reason for cancellation of GST registration that petitioner has not filed GSTR-3B since February 2021. The petitioner had filed GSTR-1 for the period from February 2021 to August 2021 which shows that liability towards payment of GST for the relevant period was well in their knowledge which was required to be discharged by filing GSTR-3B, however the same was not filed till the date of cancellation of registration. He has not filed the returns till the effective date of cancellation i.e. 9.12.2021 till date. 11.2. It is further contended that the GST dues for the period August 2018 to October 2019 including the payment for the period February 2021 and March 2021 amounts to Rs.30,51,542/- which was paid by third party and not by the petitioner. The leviable interest is pending and the petitioner claimed out of the total sum of Rs.5,24,47,777/- paid as contended in the para in relation to the cancellation of registration is not correct as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich the cancellation is the result. Even in paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in-reply there is no clarity as to how after the payment of Rs.30,51,542/- given by the third party from whom the petitioner needed to receive the payment, there is a outstanding liability of Rs.21,74,178/-. It is not disputed that GSTR-1 has already been filed and he has not filed GSTR-3B. The fact remains that the payment of earlier dues to the extent of Rs.5,24,47,777/- is already been made and thereafter also Rs.30,51,542/- for the period from February 2021 to March, 2021 also been paid by the third party. It is not the concern of the State whether it has been paid by the third party or by the petitioner, when otherwise there are no questions concerning income of the third party. This is just to demonstrate that till date there is no clarity with regard to the demand raised by the State in wake of the failure on the part of the petitioner concerned to file the GSTR-3B. This cryptic order has been frowned upon by this Court as that is in clear and gross violation of principles of natural justice. In fact, we proposed to the learned counsel this wise that, we were inclined to send a message to the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... flect the jurisdictional facts based on which the final order is proposed to be passed. The person proceeded against would then have an opportunity to show cause that the authority had erroneously assumed existence of a jurisdictional fact and, since the essential jurisdictional facts do not exist, the authority does not have jurisdiction to decide the other issues. 12.1. We find that the aforesaid observation would squarely apply to the present facts of the case on hand. Thus, the sum and substance of various judgments on the principles of natural justice is to the effect that wherever an order is likely to result in civil consequences, though the statute or provision of law, by itself, does not provide for an opportunity of hearing, the requirement of opportunity of hearing has to be read into the provision." 13. In the instant case also not only the civil but the penal consequence pursuant to the impugned order of cancellation of certificate of registration, the petitioner would be liable. This judgment has come in the month of February 2022, the petition has been preferred on 14.11.2022 and the reply of the respondent has come before this Court on 28.11.2022. There is not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
