9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the petitioner to move to the respondents to seek revocation of the cancellation in terms of the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner thereafter moved an application for revocation on 26.12.2023 itself before respondent No.1. However, on the same day, the application stood rejected leading to the filing of the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, referred to the first two lines of the Order of Cancellation itself to demonstrate that the impugned order under challenge is one which has been passed without application of mind. 5. For ready reference, the contents of the first two lines of the impugned order dated 11.07.2022 itself have been reproduced herein under: "This has reference to your reply dated 08.07.2022 in response to the notice to show cause dated 07.06.2022. Whereas no reply to notice to show cause has been submitted". Referring to the aforesaid contents of the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the first instance, the petitioner had not been served upon the show cause dated 07.06.2022 at all and neither had the petitioner made any response nor correspondence with the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or cancellation of registration and the subsequent cancellation of GST registration was subjected to challenge, wherein, the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in paragraph Nos.7, 8, 9 and 11 held as under: "7. At the outset, we may observe that there appears to be much substance in the submissions as urged on behalf of the petitioner, that the show cause notice dated 27th July 2022 issued to the petitioner itself was defective, inasmuch as, there was no material whatsoever referred in the show cause notice as to why the petitioner was being labeled of having obtained registration by means of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts. In our opinion, if the designated officer was to proceed against the petitioner on such material, details in that regard ought to have been furnished to the petitioner so as to invite the petitioner's reply on such serious allegation of fraud being committed by the petitioner. The petitioner certainly was kept in total darkness on the allegations which were sought to be raised against him so as to meet a case being put up by the department and which was in fact was not informed to the petitioner and/or concealed from the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereon, has in fact proved counter-productive to the interest of revenue, if the department is correct in its case as put up in the reply affidavit for the first time. The concerned Commissionerate needs to take a serious view of such approach of the concerned Officers who are not following the law in issuing appropriate show cause notices more particularly when the issues are serious. Such deviation by the concerned officers from deviating the following the well settled norms and procedures, in fact would benefit an assessee if there is material that he was committed illegalities." 9. Likewise, there is yet another decision from the High Court of Madras in the case of Tvl. Sastha Engineering Works, Rep by its Partner v. State Tax Officer (Circle) and Another (2022 SCC OnLine Mad 8452) wherein the High Court of Madras in paragraph Nos.4 to 7 has held as under: "4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that in identical circumstances, this Court, in the case of Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others (W.P.Nos. 25048, 25877, 12738 of 2021 etc., batch), dated 31.01.2022, issued the following directions: "229. In the light ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. xi. No cost. xii. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed." 5. The same has been consistently thereafter followed by this Court in various decisions, viz., a) M/s.Maaruthi Foundations Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner (ST) (FAC), reported in 2022 (5) TMI 405; b) J. Jayakrishnan Vs The Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai reported in 2022 (7) TMI 1226; c) TVL.Jeyalakshmi Store represented by its Proprietor, Sivanu Pandian Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes reported in 2022 (7) TMI 1275 ; d) M/s.Pearl and Company Vs The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in W.P(MD)No.19127 of 2022. 6. In view of the fact that this Court has been consistently following the directions issued in the case of Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others (W.P.Nos.25048, 25877, 12738 of 2021 etc., batch) and the Revenue/Department has also accepted the said view as evident from the fact that no appeal has been filed in any of the matters, this Court intends to follow the above order of this Court. 7. In view of the same, this Court feels that the bene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
