Case Title | Aditya Narayan Ojha vs Principal Commissioner, CGST Delhi |
Court | Delhi High Court |
Honorable Judges | Justice Rajiv Shakdher & Justice Tara Vitasa Ganju |
Citation | 2022 (8) GSTPanacea 115 HC Delhi |
Judgement Date | 2-August-2022 |
Council for Petitioner | Karan Sachdev Akshay Ravi |
Council for Respondent | Akash Vajpai |
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher & Justice Tara Vitasa Ganju has held that Registration cannot be cancelled as order with only reason in as “No response received from the taxpayer’s end” is not acceptable.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Petitioner GST registration was cancelled dated 10.10.2021. He stated that no notice of physical inspection was served on the petitioner. Mr Sachdev says that the inspection of the petitioner’s premises (and the finding that the petitioner was not in existence at the said premises) was the prime reason, based on which the respondents/revenue proceeded, it appears, to cancel the petitioner’s registration; although, the said reason does not find mention in the order.
The only reason adverted to in the order dated 10.10.2021 is: “No response received from the taxpayer’s end
Further Petitioner appeal the cancellation order .The first appellate authority as per order in appeal (OIA) dated 07.01.2022 reversed the order dated 10.10.2021 and directed Petitioner to return with instructions Against same respondents/revenue didn’t comply with the OIA.
Thereafter, the matter was listed in Court on 02.06.2022. Petitioner had indicated that a decision had been taken by the respondents/revenue to prefer an appeal against the OIA dated 07.01.2022. In line with the liberty given by the Court, a communication dated 15.07.2022 was addressed to the Principal Chief Commissioner, CGST-Delhi Zone by the Additional Commissioner of CGST Delhi (North Commissionerate).Sadly, since then there has been no movement in the matter.
COURT HELD
Considering the facts as recorded, held that the in the order dated 10.10.2021 to the fact that the petitioner was not found to be in existence and therefore registration was cancelled. The only reason adverted to in the order dated 10.10.2021 is: “No response received from the taxpayer’s end” It cannot but be accepted, as noticed above, all this did not form part of the order dated 10.10.2021 Furthermore, the first appellate authority has given a rationale for revoking the order cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration; as noted hereinabove.
Thus, no good reason not to direct the respondents/revenue to comply with the OIA. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that respondents/revenue shall restore the petitioner’s GST registration. The restoration will be carried out within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgement.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
As there is no reference in the order dated 10.10.2021 to the fact that the petitioner was not found to be in existence and therefore, registration was cancelled. The only reason adverted to in the order dated 10.10.2021 is: “No response received from the taxpayer’s end.
Furthermore, the first appellate authority has given a rationale for revoking the order cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration. Thus writ petition is disposed of with a direction t respondents/revenue shall restore the petitioner’s GST registration.
Download PDF:
AdityaNarayanOjhaAmitAssociates
For Reference Visit:
Delhi High Court