9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1095X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after 'the impugned SCN'), whereby the respondents had proposed to cancel the petitioner's GST registration for the following reasons: "1. Letter received from Deputy Commissioner, (A.E)vide letter no. 13553 dt 16.09.2022." 4. The petitioner was called upon to file the reply within seven working days from the date of service of the impugned SCN and was also directed to appear before the Proper Officer on 27.09.2022. Additionally, the petitioner's GST registration was suspended with effect from the date of the impugned SCN. 5. The petitioner's GST registration was, thereafter, cancelled by an order dated 11.07.2023 (hereafter 'impugned order'), with retrospective effect from 30.11.2020. The reasons for the cancellation as set out in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sferred fully for any reason including death of the proprietor, amalgamated with other legal entity, demerged or otherwise disposed of; or (b) there is any change in the constitution of the business; or (c) the taxable person is no longer liable to be registered under section 22 or section 24 or intends to opt out of the registration voluntarily made under sub-section (3) of section 25. Provided that during pendency of the proceedings relating to cancellation of registration filed by the registered person, the registration may be suspended for such period and in such manner as may be prescribed (2) The proper officer may cancel the registration of a person from such date, including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit, whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumstances as set out in Section 29(1) or 29(2) of the CGST Act. 12. In the present case, it is noticed that the impugned SCN was issued solely on the basis of a letter received from another authority. The said letter is neither attached to the impugned SCN nor does the impugned SCN refers to the contents thereon. 13. The impugned order, as stated above, does not indicate that the Proper Officer was satisfied as to any of the conditions as set out in Section 29(1) or 29(2) of the CGST Act. 14. The Courts in Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Hyderabad: (1970) 1 SCC 795, Union of India & Ors. v. Bharat Forge Ltd. & Anr.: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1018 and Kritika Agarwal v. Union of India & Ors., Neutral Citation No. 2023 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
