Case Title | NEHA ENTERPRISE VS STATE OF GUJARAT |
Court | Ahmedabad High Court |
Honorable Judges | JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT |
Citation | 2023 (01) GSTPanacea 271 HC Ahmedabad R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20505 of 2022 |
Judgement Date | 19- January-2023 |
The petitioner is contesting the legal actions initiated by the department through a show cause notice dated 10th May 2022. These actions led to the cancellation of the registration of the petitioner’s firm under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (referred to as the CGST Act).
The petitioner is contesting the actions taken by the department following a show cause notice issued on May 10, 2022, which led to the cancellation of the petitioner firm’s registration under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (referred to as the CGST Act). The petitioner, registered under the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (referred to as the GGST Act), was issued the show cause notice in Form GST REG-17/31 pursuant to the powers conferred by Section 29 of the CGST Act and Rule 22(1) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (referred to as the CGST Rules). Notably, the petitioner claims they did not receive the notice physically, nor was it received by post or at their registered address.
The petitioner is disputing the actions taken by the department based on a show cause notice issued on May 10, 2022, which resulted in the cancellation of their firm’s registration under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The petitioner, registered under the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (GGST Act), asserts that they were not properly served the show cause notice, as it was not physically delivered to them nor received at their registered address. Furthermore, they argue that the notice lacked sufficient detail, with no supporting documents uploaded besides a single-page notice. There were no reasons provided for the allegations made against them, leaving the petitioner unable to adequately defend themselves. They also highlight that no opportunity for a personal hearing was granted, and the notice failed to specify the name, designation, time, and place for the petitioner to appear. Despite these challenges, the petitioner has made efforts to address the situation.
The petitioner in this case is contesting the legality of actions taken against their firm under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The proceedings began with a show cause notice dated 10.05.2022, which led to the cancellation of the petitioner’s firm registration by the department.
The petitioner, registered under the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (GGST Act), received the show cause notice through Form GST REG-17/31, purportedly exercising powers under Section 29 of the CGST Act and Rule 22(1) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (CGST Rules). However, the notice was not physically delivered to the petitioner, nor was it received by post or at their registered address.
One of the petitioner’s grievances is the lack of additional documents uploaded besides the single-page notice. They argue that without proper substantiation or reasons provided, it is difficult for them to address the allegations. The notice failed to specify the person issuing it, the time and place for the petitioner to appear, and no opportunity for personal hearing was granted.
Despite these challenges, the petitioner attempted to submit a brief reply on a portal, stating the notice’s unintelligibility for any prudent person to respond to.
On 25.05.2022, the State Tax Officer, Ghatak 23 (Ahmedabad), issued an order cancelling the petitioner firm’s registration. However, this order did not provide any reasons for the cancellation, merely referring to an attached order without specifying its contents.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application on 15.06.2022 seeking revocation of the registration cancellation. However, on 01.08.2022, the department rejected the petitioner’s application without providing reasons for the decision.
In summary, the petitioner is challenging the procedural irregularities and lack of substantive justification leading to the cancellation of their firm’s registration under the CGST Act. They argue for fair treatment, including proper notice, opportunity to respond, and transparent reasoning behind administrative decisions.
The petitioner is contesting actions taken against their firm by the tax department, particularly the cancellation of their registration under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The proceedings began with a show cause notice issued on 10.05.2022, which the petitioner argues was not properly served to them. They contend that the notice lacked clarity and failed to provide adequate details for them to respond effectively. Despite their attempts to engage with the process by submitting a reply, the State Tax Officer canceled their registration on 25.05.2022 without specifying reasons for the cancellation.
The petitioner subsequently filed an application for the revocation of the cancellation, which was rejected by the department on 01.08.2022. Feeling aggrieved by these decisions, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking several reliefs, including the quashing of the show cause notice and the cancellation order, restoration of their registration, and interim measures to suspend the effects of the cancellation order until the final disposal of the petition.
The petitioner argues that the actions taken against them were procedurally flawed, as they were not given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations and were not provided with reasons for the cancellation. They seek judicial intervention to rectify these issues and restore their registration.
Download PDF:
NEHA ENTERPRISE
For Reference Visit:
Ahmedabad High Court
Read Another Case Law:
GST Case Law