9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent no. 3 in Defective Appeal No. 2425AAZA000144/2024 (GST) Year 2023-24. (b) To issue a suitable writ, order or direction issued in the nature of certiorari the Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the order passed for cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner vide order dated 01.6.2023 passed by respondent no. 4." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a proprietorship concerned engaged in the business of construction work and for that purpose he has obtained GST IN - 09BDSPR0333P2ZR. On 22.5.2023, respondent no. 4 has issued a show cause notice for cancellation of registration under Rule 21 (d) of the Rules and thereafter ex parte order has been passed cancelling the GST registration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2023. Whereas no reply to the show cause notice has been submitted; and whereas, the undersigned based on record available with this office is of the opinion that your registration is liable to be cancelled for following reason(s): Rule 21(d)-person violates the provision of rule 10A (Bank details) The effective date of cancellation of your registration is 01/06/2023 2. Kindly refer to the supportive document(s) attached for case specific details.-Not Applicable 3. It may be noted that a registered person furnishing return under sub-section (1) of section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017 is required to furnish a final return in FORM GSTR-10 within three months of the date of this order. 4. You are required to furnish all your pending ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther argues that as the appeal has not been decided on merit, the doctrine of merger will have no application and it is only the order dated 07.01.2023 which affects the petitioner and as the same is devoid of any reasons, the same can be challenged before this Court as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai and Ors. - (1998) 8 SCC 1. 7. He further places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Om Prakash Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors.; Writ Tax No.100 of 2022 decided on 06.09.2022 wherein this Court had recorded that every administrative authority or a quasi judicial authority should necessarily indicate reasons as reasons are heart and soul of any ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uous by its absence in the notice to the petitioner. Moreover, the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 29 mandates opportunity of hearing being provided to the person whose registration is proposed to be cancelled before cancelling the registration. Paragraph 11 of the writ petition categorically mentions that after issuance of the show cause notice, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner by the respondent no.4 and that neither any date was fixed for hearing nor the petitioner was even called to "place the case" before the respondent no.4. .... In the considered view of this Court, the denial of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as is mandated in the first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Act o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
