My Trading Overseas VS Commissioner of GST

The court proceedings began with the issuance of a notice regarding the case. Mr. Aggarwal, the counsel representing the respondent, acknowledged the notice. The petitioner initiated the present petition to challenge an order dated 22nd November 2023, referred to as ‘the impugned order’, which revoked the petitioner’s GST (Goods and Services Tax) registration. This revocation stemmed from a show cause notice dated 5th April 2022, termed ‘the impugned SCN’, wherein the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration was proposed on the grounds of potential fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The specific reasons cited in the SCN for the proposed cancellation were not explicitly stated in the summary provided.

The present case revolves around the impugned order dated 22.11.2023, which cancelled the petitioner’s GST registration. The order stemmed from a show cause notice (SCN) dated 05.04.2022, proposing the cancellation of the registration on the grounds of potential fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The petitioner was instructed to respond within seven working days and appear before the relevant officer on 07.04.2022. Additionally, the GST registration was suspended from 05.04.2022.

In response, the petitioner stated that while all required documents were uploaded during registration, they were blurred due to size restrictions. The petitioner expressed readiness to re-upload the documents if necessary and requested restoration of the suspended GST registration.

However, it is noted that the impugned SCN lacked specificity. It failed to clearly outline the reasons for proposing the cancellation or provide specific allegations of fraud or wilful misstatement. It did not shed light on the facts allegedly suppressed by the petitioner.

This summary encapsulates the legal issue surrounding the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration based on an inadequate show cause notice, which lacked essential particulars and failed to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner.

The issue at hand pertains to a petition filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 22nd November 2023, wherein the petitioner’s GST (Goods and Services Tax) registration was cancelled. The cancellation was proposed following a show cause notice dated 5th April 2022, alleging fraudulent means, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts in obtaining the registration.

Upon receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner responded on 6th April 2022, explaining that although all necessary documents were uploaded during registration, they appeared blurred due to size restrictions. The petitioner assured readiness to re-upload the documents if required and requested restoration of their GST registration, which had been suspended since 5th April 2022.

Critically, the show cause notice lacked specificity, failing to clearly articulate the grounds for the proposed cancellation. It did not detail the alleged fraud or wilful misstatement nor specify the suppressed facts. This lack of clarity in the notice was deemed insufficient for the petitioner to formulate a meaningful response, contravening the fundamental purpose of such notices, which is to enable the noticee to address the allegations adequately.

The court highlighted precedents underscoring the necessity for show cause notices to outline reasons for proposed actions comprehensively. Failing to meet this standard renders the notice ineffective and the subsequent order void.

In light of these considerations, the court deemed the impugned order void due to the inadequacy of the show cause notice. This decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness and clarity in administrative actions, particularly in matters as significant as the cancellation of GST registration.

The case involves a petition challenging an order dated 22nd November 2023, which cancelled the petitioner’s GST registration. The cancellation was proposed based on a show cause notice (SCN) issued on 5th April 2022, citing reasons including obtaining registration through fraudulent means or willful misstatement. The petitioner responded to the SCN, explaining that their documents were blurred due to size restrictions but were willing to re-upload them. However, the SCN lacked specific details regarding the allegations, which the court noted as essential for a meaningful response.

The court emphasized that show cause notices must clearly outline reasons for cancellation to enable informed responses. Since the impugned SCN failed to meet this standard, the resulting order was deemed void for violating principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the order lacked reasons for cancellation beyond referencing the SCN. Thus, both the order and the SCN were set aside, directing the restoration of the petitioner’s GST registration. However, this restoration wouldn’t prevent authorities from initiating fresh proceedings in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the petition accordingly, including any pending applications.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: