Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (6) TMI 888

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... initial stage of issuance of show cause notice - affording of opportunity of being heard is a precondition for exercising the power of cancellation of registration. In the present case, the show cause notice did not contain sufficient reasons to enable the assessee-petitioner to file a reply and, therefore, reasonable opportunity of being heard was denied to the petitioner. By saying that the registration has been obtained by fraud/wilful misstatement/suppression of facts, is not sufficient. Such terms need to be supported by reasons as to why, how and under what circumstances the registration was obtained by fraud/wilful misstatement/ suppression of facts. More so, such reasons ought to be supported by at least some fundamental supporting material, which, in the instant case is conspicuously missing - More so, the order of cancellation of registration is also bereft of any reason whatsoever and thus disables the petitioner-assessee from effectively availing the remedy of statutory appeal u/S.107. This Court profitably refers to the Division Bench decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Balaji Enterprises [ 2022 (9) TMI 1107 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] where the facts and circu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oresaid 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 Devices Pvt. Ltd. Vs. MP Public Health Services Corpn. Ltd. and another, 2021 SCC OnLine MP 3389; decision of Delhi High Court in Balaji Enterprises Vs. Principal Additional Director General, Directorate General of GST Intelligence and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3201; and decision of Gujarat High Court in Vageesh Umesh Jaiswal V. State of Gujarat, [2022] 136 taxmann.com 392 (Gujarat) submits that since the very foundation (the show cause notice) is violative of principle of natural justice (audi alteram partem), the impugned order of cancellation of registration and all subsequent orders passed pursuant thereto are vitiated and are liable to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondents/Revenue by referring to the return submits that on inspection of premises of the petitioner-firm carried out on 10.01.2022, the business activities of petitioner were found to be doubtful, on the basis of which the impug .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on 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 reply not satisfactory. Adhaar not verified also. 2. Firm registration canceled on the basis of physical verification report which is attached. Please see that physical report. If you are not agree with proper officer decision you have opportunity to file appeal against proper officer. 8.5 Pertinently, the application for revocation of cancellation of registration preferred u/S.30 was filed by the petitioner on 07.03.2022 (Annexure P/6), which appears to have not been taken into account while rejecting the claim for revocation of cancellation of registration. 8.6 Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal u/S.107, which came to be dismissed by order dated 13.06.2022 (Annexure P/9) 9. After hearing learned counsel for rival parties and perusing the record, it is evident as day-light that the principle of natural justice (audi alteram partem) has been given a go-bye by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ervice 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, then the Proper Officer is free to pass appropriate order; and (g) in case, assessee submits reply in writing, then the same is to be considered by passing an appropriate speaking order by the competent authority u/S.30 containing sufficient reasons to enable the assessee to avail the remedy of appeal u/S.107. 10.1 Similar affording of reasonable opportunity is stipulated while deciding an application for revocation of cancellation of registration u/S.30. 11. Reverting to the facts herein, it is obvious at first glance that the show cause notice did not contain sufficient reasons to enable the assesseepetitioner to file a reply and, therefore, reasonable opportunity of being heard was denied to the petitioner. By saying that the registration has been obtained by fraud/wilful misstatement/suppression of facts, is not sufficient. Such terms need to be su .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 impugned order, the Range Inspector appears to have physically verified the petitioner's premises, neither was any notice given of the physical verification, nor is the report which was generated after the verification, uploaded on the portal. 17. This was required to be done, as provided in Rule 25 of the CGST Rules. 18. We have specifically queried Mr. Aditya Singla, who appears on behalf of the respondents/revenue on this aspect of the matter. 19. Mr. Singla is not able to give a satisfactory answer, as to whether or not the verification report had been uploaded on the designated portal. 20. Ms Anjali J. Manish, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, has emphatically submitted before us, that the verification report has not been uploaded on the designated portal. 21. Apart from anything else, there .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates