9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1048X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a proprietary firm and had applied for and was granted GST registration on 20-07-2022. 3. On 06-02-2023, the petitioner was served with a notice in Form GST REG - 17, proposing to cancel the GST registration alleging that it was obtained by fraud. The petitioner submitted necessary response by filing application reference on 11-02-2023 by the order dated 09-06-2023. Respondent no. 5 - Superintendent of State Tax cancelled the registration. The petitioner preferred application for revocation of cancellation on 08-08-2023 together with a prayer for condoning the delay in filing the application. Respondent no. 4 rejected that application for revocation of cancellation by the order dated 29-08-2023. 4. The petitioner challenged that order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for revoking the cancellation of registration belatedly. The appellate authority has exceeded the jurisdiction in considering the merits of the application for revocation of cancellation when it was merely a matter for considering if there was sufficient ground for him not to make that application in time. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Ladda for the respondent - revenue would oppose the petition. He would submit that the petitioner was relegated to the appellate authority by laying down a time frame. He was not prompt enough in responding to hearing on the stipulated date and left with no alternative, respondent no. 3 had to pass the order. It cannot be said that it was passed ex-parte. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unicated Investigation findings and ab-initio registration cancellation in letter No. ACST/NAN/INV/D-001/INV/22-23/B-98 dated 19.01.2023. There seems no reply from the applicant to GSTR-3A notice, also. Hence rejected. Therefore, based on the above facts the condonation of delay application is hereby rejected. Date: 29/08/2023 Place: MAHARASHTRA SATISHKUMAR CHANDAN TAKBHAWRE Joint Commissioner MHCG0875" 11. A plain reading of this order would clearly demonstrate that instead of adverting to the cause being put forth and in spite of being alive to the fact that the petitioner was furnishing some ground for condoning the delay in filing the revocation application, the application was itself decided on merits which approach i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leged 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. 15. The order passed by respondent no. 4 - Joint Commissioner in the original proceeding and that of respondent no. 3 - Commissioner in the appeal are quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to respondent no. 4 - Joint Commissioner. 16. Though the notice was attributing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
