GOLDEN KEY CONSTRUCTION VS THE SUPERINTENDENT

The case at hand involves a dispute regarding the cancellation of the petitioner’s registration for failure to file returns during a specified period. The Senior Government Pleader argues that there is no dispute regarding the petitioner’s failure to file returns, and thus the cancellation order is not illegal. It is asserted that the proper legal procedure was followed in initiating the cancellation proceedings against the petitioner. Furthermore, it is emphasized that the petitioner did not apply for revocation within the specified time frame as per Section 30, nor did they file an appeal within the stipulated time.

Upon hearing arguments from both the petitioner’s counsel and the Senior Government Pleader, the court leans towards granting relief to the petitioner. Notably, the show cause notice issued to the petitioner has not been presented to the court, but a copy was provided by the petitioner’s counsel for examination. This notice, according to the petitioner, was issued in Form No.GST Reg 17/31, which is intended for issuing notices prior to cancellation of registration. However, the court finds it questionable that a combined notice was issued under both Form GST Reg 17 and Form GST Reg 31, as no such procedure is outlined in the Rules. Additionally, the court expresses doubt about the validity of this combined notice.

In summary, while the Senior Government Pleader argues that the cancellation order is valid due to the petitioner’s failure to comply with filing requirements and procedural steps, the court is inclined to grant relief to the petitioner based on discrepancies observed in the issuance of the show cause notice.

The case revolves around the cancellation of the petitioner’s registration due to failure to file returns within the specified period. The Senior Government Pleader argues that the cancellation order is lawful as the petitioner did not file returns or follow the procedures outlined by law for revocation or appeal. However, upon examination, the court finds discrepancies in the issuance of the show cause notice. While the notice is labeled as Form GST REG-31, which is for suspension of registration, it lacks certain details required by the rules and appears to be a combined notice, which is not prescribed by the law.

After hearing arguments from both sides, the court determines that the petitioner should succeed. The notice issued does not comply with the proper procedure, as it is not in the correct form and lacks necessary details. Therefore, the petitioner’s registration cancellation cannot be upheld based on the flawed notice.

The case revolves around a dispute regarding the cancellation of the petitioner’s registration for failure to file returns for a specified period. The Senior Government Pleader argues that the cancellation was lawful, as the petitioner failed to comply with the required procedures and deadlines, including not applying for revocation within the specified time frame and not filing an appeal.

Upon hearing arguments from both sides, the court finds in favor of the petitioner. It notes discrepancies in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, which was supposed to be in Form GST REG-17 for cancellation but was instead issued in Form GST REG-31, intended for suspension of registration. The court emphasizes the importance of following prescribed procedures in legal matters, citing established legal principles and previous court rulings.

The court concludes that the action taken by the officer, initiating proceedings for cancellation of registration using Form GST REG-31 instead of the required Form GST REG-17, lacks jurisdiction. It asserts that if the officer intends to proceed with cancellation, they must adhere to the specified procedures outlined in Rule 21 of the CGST Rules and issue the appropriate notice in Form GST REG-17. Therefore, the court rules in favor of the petitioner, declaring the cancellation order to be without jurisdiction.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: