Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (10) TMI 1048

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to the petitioner for revoking the registration in the notice served upon him was to the effect that he had obtained registration by practising fraud. It is totally bereft of any circumstance indicating as to the manner in which the alleged fraud was perpetrated. Considering the fact that fraud is a serious allegation which has to be proved to the hilt, respondent no. 4 - Joint Commissioner would have been more cautious in issuing the show cause notice by giving all the details and circumstances which were considered for drawing the inference about alleged fraud. It would have extended an opportunity to the petitioner to deal with each of the circumstances individually and even collectively. The order passed by respondent no. 4 - Joint Com .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eals). 5. The petitioner attended the hearing before respondent no. 3 on 07-05-2024. Petitioner was called upon to produce his correspondence with the Chief Secretary (Finance) respondent no. 2 by 09-05-2024. The petitioner s consultant and the respondent no. 3 situate in Nasik whereas he is a resident of State of Karnataka. He fell ill and on a medical advice took rest and could furnish information to the consultant only on 14-05-2024. When he reached the office of respondent no. 3 appellate authority, the appeal was already decided, upholding the order of respondent no. 4 dated 23-08-2023. 6. Learned advocate for the petitioner would vehemently submit that there was sufficient and plausible cause for him not to attend the proceeding befor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was dismissed having been preferred beyond the statutory time limit by respondent no. 4 Joint Commissioner, CGST. Obviously, therefore, the only issue that could have been gone into and decided by respondent no. 3 Commissioner who was the appellate authority, was to address and decide as to if there was sufficient and bona fide cause for the petitioner not to apply for revocation of cancellation of registration in time. 10. Besides, respondent no. 4 Joint Commissioner of Central Tax had passed the following order on the petitioner s application :- Application Reference Number (ARN): AA270323055528V Date 08/08/2023 Order of rejection of application for condonation of delay in filing revocation application of cancellation of registration. Th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... en the appellate authority respondent no. 3 has apparently repeated the error instead of correcting the one committed by the respondent no. 4 Joint Commissioner. He has passed an elaborate order touching the merits as to how the cancellation was legal and proper, in spite of taking note of the fact that the prayer for condonation of delay itself was, in fact, not decided by respondent no. 4 Joint Commissioner on merits. Repeating the same error committed by the Joint Commissioner, the impugned order has been passed without taking into consideration the merits of the petitioner s request for condoning the delay in preferring the application for revocation of cancellation of registration. 13. It is improper for both the authorities not to adv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ole exercise undertaken by respondent no. 4 - Joint Commissioner is contrary to the principles of natural justice and violative of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. 17. Surprisingly, respondent no. 3 - appellate authority has fallen in the same trap. In spite of being a statutory appellate authority under section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, it seems to have clearly failed to notice the afore-mentioned bare minimum draping of a quasi judicial proceeding. If it was a matter of cancellation of registration, which is a drastic action, it was imperative that even the appellate authority should have noted the lapse on the part of respondent no. 4 in serving the show cause .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates