9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im. It is a fundamental principle of natural justice that a person cannot be condemned unheard. He must have full opportunity to respond to the allegations before any adverse order is passed on the basis of those allegations. In the present case, the impugned SCN fails to meet the requisite standards of a show cause notice. The impugned cancellation order also does not indicate any reason for cancelling the petitioner s GST registration. It merely states that the same is in reference to the impugned SCN. It is also important to note that the petitioner s GST registration was cancelled with retrospective effect from 24.07.2019. However, no such action was proposed in the impugned SCN - It is apparent that the impugned cancellation order has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as cancelled with effect from 24.07.2019. 4. The only reason set out in the impugned SCN for proposing to cancel the petitioner s GST registration reads as under: Section 29(2)(e)-registration obtained by means of fraud, wilful mistreatment or suppression of facts. 5. The petitioner was called upon to file a reply within a period of seven working days from the receipt of the impugned SCN and appear before the proper officer on 25.05.2023. Additionally, the petitioner s GST registration was suspended with effect from 19.05.2023. 6. As is apparent from the above, the impugned SCN is cryptic and does not clearly set out the reasons as to why the petitioner s GST registration was proposed to be cancelled. It merely reproduces the statutory prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion order on 06.07.2023. Pursuant to the aforesaid application, the proper officer had issued another Show Cause Notice dated 21.07.2023 (hereafter the SCN) setting out various other reasons for cancellation of the petitioner s GST registration. The SCN once again alleged that the petitioner s GST registration was cancelled on the basis of fraud and wilful misstatement. However, it also stated that the petitioner had availed ineligible credit of ₹18,87,503.33 received from a non-existent firm M/s Gunjan Traders. It is apparent that this allegation was made pursuant to a letter received from another officer who stated that no business activity was found during the physical verification. 13. The petitioner is alleged to have passed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
