Case Title | Jatin Bhagwatlal Shah Vs State Of Gujarat |
Court | Ahmedabad high court |
Honorable judges | Justice Sonia Gokani Justice Mauna M. Bhatt |
Citation | 2022 (12) GSTPanacea 566 HC Ahmedabad R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18201 of 2022 |
Judgement Date | 22-December-2022 |
The petitioner in this case is challenging an order issued on 20.08.2022 under section 107 of the Central/Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act). This order confirmed the cancellation of the petitioner’s registration certificate under the GST Act. Additionally, the petitioner’s appeal against this order was dismissed by the Authority on the same date.
The petitioner argues that the order of cancellation of their registration certificate lacks justification as it is non-speaking, meaning it does not provide clear reasons for the cancellation. They highlight that the cancellation was based on the petitioner’s absence, despite the fact that they had submitted a reply. Importantly, the petitioner claims that they were not granted an opportunity for a hearing before the cancellation decision was made.
This petition raises fundamental issues regarding procedural fairness and the right to be heard. The petitioner contends that they were denied due process, as they were not given the chance to present their case before their registration was cancelled. The non-speaking nature of the cancellation order further complicates matters, as it fails to provide adequate justification for such a significant decision.
Overall, this case underscores the importance of procedural fairness in administrative proceedings and seeks to challenge the validity of the cancellation of the petitioner’s registration certificate under the GST Act.
This petition pertains to a challenge against an order dated 20.08.2022, issued under Section 107 of the Central/Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act), which confirmed the cancellation of a registration certificate under the GST Act. The petitioner contends that the order of cancellation lacks adequate explanation and alleges that despite submitting a reply, they were not granted an opportunity for a hearing.
The affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent denies the claims made by the petitioner. It is acknowledged that the petitioner has contested the order dated 20.08.2022, which confirmed the cancellation of their registration certificate under the GST Act. The petitioner argues that their justifications were not duly considered. The authorities conducted spot visits to the petitioner’s principal place of business on multiple occasions, observing no stock, accounting records, or infrastructure during these visits. Subsequently, on 26.04.2022, the petitioner was informed about an upcoming spot visit. The petitioner asserts that ongoing proceedings under section 67 are relevant to the matter at hand.
In essence, the petitioner challenges the cancellation of their registration certificate under the GST Act, citing procedural irregularities and alleging that their justifications were not adequately considered. They argue that the spot visits conducted by the authorities did not yield incriminating evidence and that ongoing proceedings are relevant to their case.
This case involves a petition challenging an order dated 20.08.2022 passed under section 107 of the Central/Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act), which confirmed the cancellation of a registration certificate under the GST Act. The petitioner contends that the order of cancellation is non-speaking and alleges that despite submitting a reply, no opportunity for a hearing was provided.
In response, an affidavit-in-reply has been filed denying the petitioner’s claims. The crux of the dispute lies in the petitioner’s challenge to the order confirming the cancellation of the registration certificate. The petitioner argues that their justifications were not considered, despite spot visits conducted by authorities on various dates where no stock, register of accounts, or infrastructure were found. The petitioner was informed about a spot visit to their principal place of business on 26.04.2022. Additionally, ongoing proceedings under section 67 are mentioned, with the petitioner suggesting that if registration revocation is ordered in their favor, it wouldn’t affect the revenue’s interest.
An affidavit-in-rejoinder challenges the cancellation of registration, particularly questioning its retrospective effect based on minor procedural issues. The petitioner argues that the spot visit occurred without notice, leading to their absence from the place of business and subsequent adverse inferences. The petitioner also highlights the irrelevance of the agreement’s tenure, which was until 30.11.2022, and presents sales invoices predating the change of premises.
During the proceedings, both sides presented their arguments, with Mr. Uchit Sheth representing the petitioner and Ms. Pooja Ashar representing the respondent.
It’s noted that the petitioner vacated their old premises and canceled the rent agreement from 31.12.2021 onwards.
This petition challenges an order dated 20.08.2022, issued under section 107 of the Central/Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act), which confirmed the cancellation of a registration certificate under the GST Act. The petitioner argues that the order of cancellation lacks sufficient explanation and alleges that they were not given an opportunity to be heard, despite submitting a reply.
The respondent filed an Affidavit-in-reply denying the petitioner’s claims. However, it is acknowledged that the petitioner contested the order of 20.08.2022, asserting that their justifications were not considered. The authorities conducted spot visits to the petitioner’s principal place of business on multiple occasions, but reportedly found no stock, accounting records, or infrastructure. The petitioner contends that proceedings under section 67 are ongoing and requests that if registration revocation is ordered in their favor, it should not affect the Revenue’s interests.
In response, the petitioner filed an Affidavit-in-rejoinder, contesting the retrospective cancellation of registration based on minor procedural issues. They argue that the spot visit occurred without prior notice, and because they were absent from the premises, adverse inferences were drawn. The petitioner also highlights the timing of their relocation to new premises and challenges the relevance of the agreement’s tenure ending on 30.11.2022.
During court proceedings, arguments were presented by both parties’ advocates. The petitioner asserts that they vacated their old premises on 31.12.2021 and shifted to a new location on 01.01.2022, with a formal rent agreement executed on 31.01.2022. They argue that despite informing the authorities of this relocation, their registration was retrospectively canceled on the grounds of non-functioning at the previous place of business.
Furthermore, the petitioner explains that they replied to a show cause notice issued on 29.01.2022, emphasizing their relocation and cessation of activities at the old premises. However, despite being given notice for a hearing on 19.03.2022, the authorities cancelled their registration retroactively due to their absence on the designated hearing date.
In an attempt to address the cancellation, the petitioner applied for revocation on 09.04.2022, but their application was rejected. The petitioner contends that they have complied with relevant regulations and that the cancellation was unjustified.
Overall, the petition raises concerns regarding procedural fairness, the validity of the cancellation decision, and the impact on the petitioner’s business interests.
The petition in question contests an order issued on 20.08.2022 under section 107 of the Central/Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act), which confirmed the cancellation of a registration certificate under the GST Act. The petitioner argues that the cancellation order lacks proper explanation and was issued without affording them a hearing, despite the petitioner having submitted a reply.
The affidavit-in-reply submitted by the respondent denies the claims made by the petitioner. However, it is acknowledged that the petitioner is challenging the aforementioned order on the grounds that their justifications were not considered. The petitioner highlights that during spot visits conducted on 14.12.2021, 15.02.2022, and 09.05.2022, no stock, register of accounts, or infrastructure was found. They were informed of a spot visit scheduled for 26.04.2022. Additionally, ongoing proceedings under section 67 are mentioned, with the petitioner asserting that if the registration is revoked in their favor, it will not adversely affect the revenue.
In the affidavit-in-rejoinder, the petitioner challenges the retrospective cancellation of registration based on minor procedural issues. They argue that the spot visit occurred without prior notice, and since they were not present at the premises during the visit, adverse inferences were drawn. The petitioner emphasizes that their shift to new premises had been communicated, and sales invoices provided predate the change of premises.
During court proceedings, arguments were presented by both parties’ representatives: Mr. Uchit Sheth, the petitioner’s advocate, and Ms. Pooja Ashar, the Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent.
The petitioner asserts that they vacated their old premises and entered into a new rental agreement effective from 01.01.2022, although formally executed on 31.01.2022. They explain that the show cause notice for registration cancellation was issued on 29.01.2022, alleging non-filing of returns and non-functioning at the principal place of business. However, the petitioner responded, stating their relocation to a new premises by 31.12.2021.
Subsequently, the petitioner was notified of a hearing on 19.03.2022, which they attended, but their registration was retrospectively canceled due to their absence on the specified date. An application for revocation was filed on 09.04.2022, which was rejected, and a show cause notice was issued on 13.04.2022, seeking proof of ongoing business activities.
On 25.04.2022, the petitioner responded to the show cause notice from their new premises. However, as their registration was suspended and later canceled, the required documentation could not be submitted. Despite being present during the spot verification on 26.04.2022, where the absence of stock was noted, the petitioner explained that the registration cancellation had affected their operations.
Finally, the petitioner’s appeal under section 107 of the GST Act was dismissed without the advocate’s arguments being heard. The court acknowledges the material presented on record and the circumstances surrounding the cancellation of registration.
Download PDF:
For Reference Visit:
Read Another Case Law:
GST Case Law: