9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 911X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ightest of reference of any such allegations in the show cause notice. The second ground on which the registration is cancelled was referring to report submitted by the State GST Authority, and which had certain discrepancies as set out in paragraphs 2(a) (b) (c) of the order as noted above. The petitioner was never confronted / supplied any material in this regard. Also for the first time in such order passed by Assistant Commissioner, such reasons have been set out and are being made known to the petitioner. This itself is sufficient to reach a conclusion that the impugned order dated 31 January 2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, was in gross breach of principles of natural justice and deserved to be set aside. Conduct of the GST officer / Appellate authority - HELD THAT:- It appears from the record that the fate of the petitioner insofar as the approach of the appellate authority is concerned, was not different. The unfairness in fact stood compounded even in the adjudication of the appeal before such high Officer. This is clear from the reading of the impugned order passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II). The Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II) while confirmi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The facts as would unfold are:- Mr. Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to a show cause notice dated 5 January 2021 issued to the petitioner purportedly calling upon the petitioner as to why the registration of the petitioner under the CGST Act should not be cancelled. It needs to be observed that the show cause notice itself, was bereft of particulars. It had no description on any details of the allegations. A perusal of the show cause notice itself would indicate that the well-settled norms of fairness and reasonableness were bypassed, in what can be termed as a vague and ambiguous show cause notice. We also note that the show cause notice itself records that the registration of the petitioner is being suspended from 5 January 2021 (from the date of the show cause notice itself). The show cause notice reads thus: 1. In case, Registration has been obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. Your are hereby directed to furnish a reply to the notice within seven working days from the date of service of this notice. Your are hereby directed to appear before the undersigned on 06/01/2021 at 03:25 PM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (emphasis supplied) 5. It is clear from the reading of the above order that there were no tax dues either under the Central, State for the integrated tax payable by the petitioner. Peculiarly the order says that the registration has been cancelled as per the instructions from the authority. As to which authority issued instructions whether they were oral or in writing, to whom they were given and for what reason, and whether on such instructions registration could at all be cancelled are question raised before us. The petitioner at no point of time was informed as to what were the instructions from any authority, nor the same forms part of the show cause notice. If on oral instructions such actions are to be resorted, it is nothing short of the concerned officer acting, as if there is no rule of law. In our opinion, there cannot be more vagueness, ambiguity leading to arbitrariness than what has been actually recorded in the order cancelling the petitioner s registration. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, and obviously confronted with such order, the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time of hearing, and is of the opinion that your registration is liable to be cancelled for following reason(s). 1. As per the investigation carried out by this Commissionerate, M/s Monit Trading Pvt. Ltd. has utilized more ITC in GSTR 3B than what was available in GSTR 2A and subsequently, the ITC has been blocked. 2. As per the Reports submitted by the State GST Authority, the following discrepancies were found. a. The company is found to be non-existent at their registered principal place of business. b. The owner of the said premises confirmed that there was no legal rental agreement executed between himself and the TP. The consent letter uploaded by the TP in the portal pertains to different premises. c. The TP has failed to submit any books of accounts either in the physical form or in the electronic form which were also not available in the registered place of business. The effective date of cancellation of your registration is 01.07.2017. 7. It is clearly seen that there is no discussion in the above order as to why and on what material the said officer had reached to the conclusion and/or the basis forming such opinion. There is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on materials which was never supplied to the appellant and which was also not to the knowledge of the petitioner. The appellate authority also has made observations in the teeth of the rules governing registration and/or oblivious of the basic rules which would be applicable for cancellation of the registration. In such context, we refer to Rule 56(10) which reads thus: 56. Maintenance of accounts by registered persons.- (10) Presumption of Maintenance of Documents, Registers or An Books of Account Unless proved otherwise, if any documents, registers, or any books of account belonging to a registered person are found at any premises other than those mentioned in the certificate of registration, then aforesaid documents. registers or any books of account shall be presumed to be maintained by the said registered person. 10. This apart there is quite casualness in the appellate authority discharging its statutory jurisdiction, inasmuch as the documents as submitted by the petitioner as permitted to be submitted by orders dated 6 January 2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court are not bothered to be referred, much less discussed or any reasons attribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not comment on the unfair approach of the officers who have passed the orders as referred by us. Firstly, the approach of the Superintendent at whose instance the proceeding commenced and who issued the show cause notice; secondly, of the Assistant Commissioner, Division-X, CGST and Central Excise, Mumbai, East, who passed the order of cancellation of petitioner s registration dated 31 January 2022; and thirdly of the Joint Commissioner, (Appeals-II) CGST and Central Excise, Mumbai who passed the impugned orders on the petitioner s appeal. 13. We would normally not make such observations, however, in our opinion, the present case is gross. It has surpassed all canons of fairness, reasonableness and the bounden duty of these officers to act in accordance with law. Such officers in their public position wield drastic powers which are conferred on them by law, however such powers are coupled with a onerous duty and obligation to be exercised strictly in accordance with law and in no other manner, much less recklessly. As observed above, each of these officers have deviated in adhering to such basic principles in the jurisdiction which they were empowered to exercise as conferred by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
