9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1025X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 as applied to the present facts brings about a consequence that the impugned order would be required to be held to be in breach of sub-section (2) of Section 28 inasmuch as the petitioner was not granted an opportunity of being heard before the impugned order was passed. Such action on the part of respondent no. 3 clearly breached the mandate of proviso below sub-section (2) of Section 28. On such count alone, the impugned order would be rendered bad and illegal. This apart, there are serious consequences which are brought about in rejection of an application for amendment. The impugned order also cannot be sustained for the reason that no reasons whatsoever are furnished in rejecting the petitioner s application for amendment of the registration. It is well settled that in passing any quasi-judicial order, necessarily reasons are required to be attributed, as the reasons would not only demonstrate an application of mind by the concerned officer in taking the decision but also it would enable the person whose application is rejected to know as to what were the reasons which weighed with the authority in rejecting the application. Thus, in the absence of any reason, any quasi-judi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition (L) No. 34276 of 2023 3. Insofar as this petition is concerned, the petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 3 November, 2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Bandra (West), Mumbai rejecting the petitioner s application for amendment of the registration, namely, change in address of the petitioner. The substantive prayer of the petitioner reads thus: (i) Issue a writ of Certiorari or a writ, orders or direction in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the order dated 03.11.2023 issued against reference No. ZA27I123022634X vide which the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Bandra West-501 has rejected the application for amendment of the Petitioner; and/or (ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus to the Respondents to consider the application of amendment with regard to addition of principal place of business to 5th Floor, Office No. 504 ML Spaces Premises Co-Operative Society Ltd., Dashrathlal Joshi Road, Bank of Baroda, Ville Parle West, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400056. 4. Before we consider the rival contentions, we are required to note the impugned order passed by the Depu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the impugned order was passed. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the record. To appreciate the rival contentions, at the outset, we would be required to note the provisions of Section 28 of the CGST Act, which provides for Amendment of registration . The said provision reads thus: 28. Amendment of registration - (1) Every registered person and a person to whom a Unique Identity Number has been assigned shall inform the proper officer of any changes in the information furnished at the time of registration or subsequent thereto, in such form and manner and within such period as may be prescribed. (2) The proper officer may, on the basis of information furnished under sub-section (1) or as ascertained by him, approve or reject amendments in the registration particulars in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed. Provided that approval of the proper officer shall not be required in respect of amendment of such particulars as may be prescribed. Provided further that the proper officer shall not reject the application for amendment in the registration particulars without giving the person an opportunity of being heard. (3) Any r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. Thus, in the absence of any reason, any quasi-judicial order would be rendered arbitrary, which the law would not recognize to be a valid order. 12. As a result of the above discussion, there can be no two opinions that the impugned order dated 3 November, 2023 would be required to be quashed and set aside. We, accordingly, allow this petition by the following order: ORDER (i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (i) and (ii). (ii) Respondent no. 3 is directed to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner and in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date the copy of the order is placed by the petitioner before respondent no. 3. Writ Petition (L) No. 578 of 2024 13. Insofar as this petition is concerned, the petitioner seeks to quashing and setting aside the order dated 20 December, 2023 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax-respondent no. 3 suspending the registration of the petitioner and issuing show cause notice for cancellation of the registration. There is also a prayer on the blocking of Input Tax Credit of the petitioner amounting to Rs.1,37,76,580/-. We may observe that the subject matter of challenge in the present petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ready provided to respondent no. 3 as also the reason for issuance of show cause notice that the petitioner does not conduct any business from the declared place of business, as also that the petitioner had made an application dated 16 October, 2023 for amendment of the registration as per the provisions of Section 28, which was illegally rejected by respondent no. 3. It is, therefore, the petitioner s case that on both counts as set out in the show cause notice, the registration of the petitioner could not have been suspended. It is further contended that it was arbitrary for respondent no. 3 to issue the communication dated 20 December, 2023 (page 135) thereby blocking the petitioner s ITC of Rs. 13776580/-, which was a system generated communication. It is submitted that the said decision to block the ITC is also bad and illegal, as the basis for blocking the credit is also on the same reason in regard to the place of business, as the bank details were already provided for by the petitioner as an application under section 28 was already submitted by the petitioner before respondent no. 3. 17. This petition was heard by us on 9 January, 2024 when an order came to be passed direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observe that insofar as the show cause notice dated 20 December, 2023 issued to the petitioner by respondent no. 3 is concerned in regard to the cancellation of the registration and considering the reasons as set out in the show cause notice, the fate of the same would certainly depend upon on the orders which respondent no. 3 would intend to pass on the petitioner s amendment application. In this view of the matter, we propose to dispose of this petition by the following order: ORDER (i) All contentions of the petitioner in response to the show cause notice dated 20 December, 2023 are expressly kept open. (ii) The petitioner is permitted to file a reply to the show cause notice without prejudice to the petitioner s rights and contentions which may be urged in the application filed by the petitioner under section 28 of the CGST Act for the amendment of its registration. (iii) Respondent no. 3 shall pass appropriate order after considering the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice and by having due regard to the order which may be passed by respondent no. 3 on the petitioner s application under section 28 of the CGST Act. (iv) Liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
