9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 888X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. W.P. No.21659 of 2022 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by an assessee, is essentially against the cancellation of registration under the State Goods and Services Tax Act (SGST) and the consequential orders of dismissal of an application for revocation of cancellation of registration and the dismissal of appeal u/S.107 of the SGST. 4. Learned counsel for rival parties are heard on the question of admission so also final disposal. 5 The principal contention of learned counsel for petitioner-assessee is two fold. The first being that the impugned show cause notice dated 28.01.2022 (Annexure P/2) is vague for not supplying the relevant reasons and material while proposing cancellation of registration. The second being denial of reasonable opportunity of defending himself and replying to the show cause notice thereby breaching the rule of natural justice (audi alteram partem). 6. On the basis of aforesaid short submission, learned counsel for petitioner relying upon decision of Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, (1978) 1 SCC 405; decision of Indore Bench of this Court in Health Care Medical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se notice dated 28.01.2022 immediately followed by the following sentence : "Whereas no reply to notice to show cause has been submitted;" 8.2 It appears from perusal of Annexure P/5 dated 24.02.2022, which is a show cause notice for rejection of an application for revocation of cancellation of registration issued by the Revenue, following reasons were assigned for the proposed rejection of application for revocation: "Any Supporting Document - Others (please specify) - Your reply not satisfactory. Adhaar not verified also." By furnishing the aforesaid reason, reply was sought from the petitioner within seven days. 8.3 It appears from perusal of show cause notice (Annexure P/5) dated 24.02.2022 that the reply dated 11.02.2022 (Annexure P/3) filed by the petitioner pursuant to first show cause notice dated 28.01.2022 (Annexure P/2) was treated as an application for revocation of cancellation of registration u/S.30. 8.4 Thereafter, the order was passed on 30.03.2022 rejecting the said application by treating the same as an application for revocation of cancellation of registration by giving following reasons: "1. Any Supporting Document - Others (Please specify) - Your rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) furnishing of reason along with supporting material to the assessee on the basis of which the registration is proposed to be cancelled; (b) the grant of sufficient opportunity by way of personal appearance or otherwise as the case may be (depending upon the textual and contextual statutory provisions) to the assessee to respond in writing; (c) in case no material is supplied or insufficient reasons are given in the show cause notice and the assessee seeks proper reasons and material, then the Revenue is obliged to extend the time for filing reply by furnishing proper reasons and supporting material; (d) Revenue should also take into account certain circumstances, which may be beyond the control of assessee where extension of time ought to be given considering the seriousness and urgency of reasons assigned for extension; (e) the minimum period after service of a valid or proper show cause notice, for submission of reply by the assessee is prescribed as seven days, which is extendable on the discretion of the Proper Officer for justified reasons to be recorded in writing; (f) in case assessee within seven days or the extended time fails to file any response in writing, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in the case of Balaji Enterprises (supra) where the facts and circumstances especially the text of the show cause notice impugned therein were almost similar to the text of the impugned show cause notice herein. The relevant paras 12 to 25 of the said judgment are reproduced below for ready reference : "12. A plain reading of the order would show, that the petitioner's registration was cancelled on account of an enquiry pending against the petitioner, which evidently is being carried out by DGGI, Chennai concerning supply of "spurious goods." 13. Furthermore, it is also indicated, as is evident on a plain reading of the impugned order, that the premises of the petitioner were physically verified by the Range Inspector, after receiving approval from the competent authority, and that it was found that the premises had been sealed by DGGI, Chennai. 14. Interestingly, the impugned order reveals, that nothing was due from the petitioner on account of tax, interest, penalty or cess. 15. Clearly, the SCN did not advert to the facets, which were referred to in the impugned order, whereby the petitioner's registration has been cancelled. 16. Although, as per the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
