GOLDEN KEY CONSTRUCTION VS THE SUPERINDENT

The case before the court concerns the cancellation of the petitioner’s registration under GST laws. The petitioner contests this cancellation, claiming procedural irregularities. The petitioner’s counsel argues that the cancellation lacked legal grounds, echoing arguments from a previous case. On the other hand, the Senior Government Pleader contends that the cancellation was valid due to the petitioner’s failure to file returns within the specified period. The Pleader emphasizes that the cancellation followed due process as prescribed by law, and the petitioner did not avail themselves of opportunities for revocation or appeal within the designated timeframe.

Upon reviewing the arguments from both sides, the court finds merit in the petitioner’s position. While the show cause notice issued to the petitioner was not presented in court, a copy provided by the petitioner’s counsel indicates discrepancies. Specifically, the notice seems to combine forms meant for different stages of proceedings: Form GST Reg 17 for show cause notices preceding cancellation and Form GST Reg 31 for notices preceding suspension. Such a combination is not prescribed by the rules governing these procedures. Additionally, the court notes the absence of clear reasons for the cancellation, further raising doubts about the procedural regularity of the action.

In light of these observations, the court is inclined to rule in favor of the petitioner. It appears that procedural lapses may have occurred in the cancellation process, rendering it legally questionable. As such, the court deems the writ petition justifiable and likely to succeed.

The case at hand involves a petitioner who is contesting the cancellation of their registration under GST enactments. The petitioner argues that the cancellation was unjust, reiterating points made in a previous case. On the other hand, the Senior Government Pleader argues that the cancellation was warranted due to the petitioner’s failure to file returns within the specified period. They assert that proper legal procedures were followed, and the petitioner did not apply for revocation or file an appeal within the required time frame.

Upon hearing both sides, the court finds in favor of the petitioner. The court notes discrepancies in the show cause notice provided, indicating it was issued in a combined form not prescribed by the rules. Specifically, it was issued in Form GST REG-31, meant for suspension of registration proceedings, rather than Form GST REG-17 for cancellation proceedings. Furthermore, the notice lacked required details outlined in the rules. As a result, the court concludes that the petitioner has grounds to succeed in their case.

In summary, the court rules in favor of the petitioner, citing procedural errors in the issuance of the show cause notice as the basis for their decision.