9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... afforded with any opportunity of personal hearing so as to justify their stand in respect of the alleged allegation of any fraud, willful, misstatement and suppression of fact. Neither the show cause notice nor order of cancellation of registration provides for any reason or findings by which the authorities thought of issuance of show cause notice and suspend the operation of the GST registration and also which lead to the cancellation of the GST registration. This Court, recently, in Sri Avanthika Sai Venkata JV [ 2024 (2) TMI 416 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT ] had allowed the writ petition setting aside the cancellation of registration under similar circumstances and the matter was remitted back for the respondent authorities to pass an order afresh. Recently, there was yet another decision of the High Court of Bombay under similar circumstances in the case of Nirakar Ramchandra Pradhan v. Union of India and Others [ 2023 (9) TMI 1176 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] whereby a show cause notice issued for cancellation of registration and the subsequent cancellation of GST registration was subjected to challenge, wherein, the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay held The impugned action in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show cause notice on 21.10.2023. The challenge in the said show cause notice dated 21.10.2023 was with respect of input tax credit for the identified fraudulent tax payer. The petitioner immediately gave a response to the said show cause notice on 02.11.2023 (annexure-P-5). Immediately on receipt of the said reply by the petitioner, the authority concerned vide order dated 15.12.2023 issued Form GST REG-20. The suspension of the registration which was effected vide show cause notice dated 21.10.2023 stood revoked. Surprisingly on the very same day by the very same officer, there was yet another show cause notice issued, alleging very same allegation of the ITC from identified fraudulent tax payers (annexure P-2) dated 15.12.2023. To this also, the petitioner immediately gave a reply on 21.12.2023. Pending consideration of the said show cause notice, the authorities concerned thrashed yet another show cause notice on 20.01.2024 by the 1st respondent under Section 29(2)(e) to which action, the petitioner has given his reply on 24.12.2024. The said show cause proceeding is still pending consideration. 4. Meanwhile, however admittedly the impugned order now has been passed annexure P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration is concerned and cancellation should not be restored in a mechanical manner or as a matter of routine. Similar decision has also been passed by Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.36174 of 2022 vide order dated 20.09.2021, where the Division Bench had set-aside the order of the appellate authority and the matter had been remanded back for fresh consideration on its own merits." 8. Recently, there was yet another decision of the High Court of Bombay under similar circumstances in the case of Nirakar Ramchandra Pradhan v. Union of India and Others 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2382 whereby a show cause notice issued for cancellation of registration and the subsequent cancellation of GST registration was subjected to challenge, wherein, the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in paragraph Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 11 held as under: "7. At the outset, we may observe that there appears to be much substance in the submissions as urged on behalf of the petitioner, that the show cause notice dated 27th July 2022 issued to the petitioner itself was defective, inasmuch as, there was no material whatsoever referred in the show cause notice as to why the petitioner was being labeled of having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash and set aside the show cause notice as also the impugned order based on such illegal show cause notice. 11. According to the respondents, there was a modus operandi on the part of the petitioner to generate and claim fake ITC. If what is stated on behalf of the revenue is to be believed to be correct, in such event, the designated officer should have been more careful and could not have been so careless in issuing such defective show cause notice. The impugned action in issuing such show cause notice and passing of the impugned order thereon, has in fact proved counter-productive to the interest of revenue, if the department is correct in its case as put up in the reply affidavit for the first time. The concerned Commissionerate needs to take a serious view of such approach of the concerned Officers who are not following the law in issuing appropriate show cause notices more particularly when the issues are serious. Such deviation by the concerned officers from deviating the following the well settled norms and procedures, in fact would benefit an assessee if there is material that he was committed i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no violation or an attempt to do bill trading by taking advantage of this order. viii. On payment of tax, penalty and uploading of returns, the registration shall stand revived forthwith. viii. On payment of tax, penalty and uploading of returns, the registration shall stand revived forthwith. ix. The respondents shall take suitable steps by instructing GST Network, New Delhi to make suitable changes in the architecture of the GST Web portal to allow these petitioners to file their returns and to pay the tax/penalty/fine. x. The above exercise shall be carried out by the respondents within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. xi. No cost. xii. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed." 5. The same has been consistently thereafter followed by this Court in various decisions, viz., a) M/s. Maaruthi Foundations Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner (ST) (FAC), reported in 2022 (5) TMI 405; b) J. Jayakrishnan Vs The Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai reported in 2022 (7) TMI 1226; c) TVL. Jeyalakshmi Store represented by its Proprietor, Sivanu Pandian Vs Commissioner of Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
