ADITYA NARAYAN OJHA (AMIT ASSOCIATES) VS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI NORTH

The petitioner approached the Court due to the non-compliance with the Order in Appeal (OIA) dated January 7, 2022. The matter first appeared in Court on May 27, 2022, where the petitioner’s grievance was noted, and notice was issued. Mr. Akash Vajpai accepted the notice on behalf of the respondents/revenue and was instructed to explain the non-implementation of the OIA.

The case was revisited on June 2, 2022, where the Court acknowledged that an appeal could not be made to the Appellate Tribunal under the GST Act due to its non-constitution and permitted the respondents/revenue to file a writ petition. Subsequently, a communication was sent to the Principal Chief Commissioner, CGST-Delhi Zone, on July 15, 2022, by the Additional Commissioner of CGST-Delhi (North Commissionerate). However, there has been no progress since then.

Mr. Karan Sachdev, representing the petitioner, highlighted the detriment caused by the delay, emphasizing the petitioner’s inability to conduct business or comply with statutory requirements without GST registration. He noted that when the registration was canceled on October 10, 2021, the petitioner owed nothing in taxes, interest, or penalties. Moreover, the petitioner had committed to settling any outstanding tax liabilities, as per the OIA dated January 7, 2022.

Mr. Sachdev also pointed out that the petitioner was not given notice of any physical inspection, which was a crucial factor in the decision to cancel the registration. However, this reason was not explicitly mentioned in the cancellation order.

Background and Initial Filing

1.Non-Compliance with OIA: The petitioner approached the Court because the Order-in-Appeal (OIA) dated 07.01.2022 had not been complied with.

2.First Listing (27.05.2022): The matter was first listed before the Court on 27.05.2022. The Court issued a notice after noting the petitioner’s grievances.

3.Notice Acceptance: Mr. Akash Vajpai accepted the notice on behalf of the respondents/revenue. He was directed to explain why the OIA dated 07.01.2022 had not been implemented.

4.Second Listing (02.06.2022): The matter was listed again on 02.06.2022. The respondents/revenue indicated their intention to appeal against the OIA.

Tribunal and Writ Petition

5.GST Appellate Tribunal: Due to the non-constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal, the respondents/revenue were given the liberty to file a writ petition.

6.Communication: On 15.07.2022, a communication was sent by the Additional Commissioner of CGST-Delhi (North Commissionerate) to the Principal Chief Commissioner, CGST-Delhi Zone. However, no progress was made subsequently.

Petitioner’s Arguments and Court’s Observations

7.Petitioner’s Detriment: Mr. Karan Sachdev, representing the petitioner, argued that the delay was severely harming the petitioner, as the lack of GST registration impeded business operations and statutory compliance.

8.Order of Cancellation (10.10.2021): Sachdev pointed out that at the time of cancellation, no tax, interest, or penalty was due from the petitioner. The petitioner had also undertaken to settle any outstanding tax liabilities, as recorded in the OIA dated 07.01.2022.

9.Physical Inspection Issue: Sachdev claimed no notice of physical inspection was served on the petitioner. The cancellation was ostensibly due to the petitioner’s non-existence at the registered premises, a reason not mentioned in the cancellation order but included in the respondents’ counter-affidavit.

10.Court’s Agreement: The Court agreed with the petitioner, noting that the reason for cancellation cited in the counter-affidavit did not appear in the original order dated 10.10.2021. The counter-affidavit cannot retroactively justify the order.