registration by GST Authorities
Case Title | Matrix Engineers vs Commissioner of GST & Ors |
Court | Delhi High Court |
Honorable Judges | Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju |
Citation | 2022 (7) GSTPanacea 207 HC Delhi W.P.(C) 2582/2022 |
Judgement Date | 21-July-2022 |
Council for Petitioner | Ms Anjali Jha Manish, Mr Priyardarshi Manish and Ms Sweta Singh |
Council for Respondent | Mr Akshay Amritanshu |
The High Court of Delhi, bench of JusticeS Rajiv Shakdher and Tara Vitasta Ganju held that the petitioner’s revocation application for cancellation of registration will be dealt with in the next two weeks.
FACTS OF THE CASE
This writ petition is, inter alia, directed against the order dated 30.03.2021, whereby the petitioner’s registration was cancelled. This order sets forth a cryptic reason i.e., “non-existent report dated 23/07/2020”, for cancellation of the petitioner’s registration.The record shows that the petitioner was issued the show-cause notice (SCN) dated 04.08.2020 (also impugned in the writ petition), which, strangely, gave the following reasons for proposing the cancellation of the petitioner’s registration: “Suo moto [sic] cancellation of registration”. Given what is noted in the SCN, one wonders, what reply could the petitioner have submitted. The SCN alludes to the conclusion without adverting to the basis for the proposed action. Despite which, the petitioner attempted a reply and submitted the same on 14.08.2020. The impugned order, as noticed above, was passed in pursuance to the reply filed by the petitioner to the aforementioned SCN.
Ms Anjali Jha Manish, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that an application seeking revocation of the order of cancellation, was submitted on 13.06.2021.
It is Ms Manish’s contention that since there was no movement in the matter, the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by way of the instant writ petition.
registration by GST Authorities
COURT HELD
The Record shows that the matter first came up for hearing on 10.02.2022. On the said date, the counsel for the respondents sought time to obtain instructions. the respondents have not taken any steps up until now in dealing with the application filed by the petitioner for revocation of the order cancelling the registration.
The following has not been disputed by the respondents/revenue:
(i). Firstly, no notice of inspection was served on the petitioner, as is required under Section 25 of the CGST Rules 2017.
(ii) Secondly, the inspection report dated 23.07.2020, which forms the basis of the impugned order dated 30.03.2021, was not furnished to the petitioner.
(iii) Several other reasons have been mentioned in the counter-affidavit by the respondent/revenue, which find no reflection in the impugned order dated 30.03.2021.
We are inclined to grant a narrow window to the respondents/revenue, to course correct and dispose of the revocation application preferred by the petitioner, the concerned officer will have to bear in mind the aspects referred to hereinabove. The writ petition is thus, disposed of, with the direction that the petitioner’s revocation application will be dealt with in the next two weeks. The concerned officer will also grant the opportunity of personal hearing to the authorized representative of the petitioner, in support of the application of revocation.
registration by GST Authorities
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
By noticing the above order we analyse that the Revenue/Department shall ensure that correct and proper procedure under G.S.T Act has been followed with respect to the cancellation of Registration of the applicant and non-compliance of any procedure will lead to defect in the process followed by the Revenue/Department.
Download PDF:
For Reference Visit: