Special Wire Products (P) Ltd VS Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner GST

The summary involves a legal case where Mr. G. Natarajan, representing the petitioner, and Mr. A.P. Srinivas, representing the respondents, were heard. The petitioner had appeared before the respondent on 29.08.2019, as evidenced by communication from the Deputy Commissioner referring to the petitioner’s submissions during a personal hearing. However, an order of rejection dated 06.09.2019 stated that the petitioner did not appear in response to a notice issued on the same date, which was incorrect. This discrepancy led to the quashing of the impugned order dated 06.09.2019, as it violated principles of natural justice. Additionally, reference was made to an order issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs in 2020.

he summary outlines a legal proceeding where Mr. G. Natarajan, representing the petitioner, and Mr. A. P. Srinivas, representing the respondents, were heard. The petitioner appeared before the respondent on 29.08.2019, as indicated by a communication from the Deputy Commissioner referencing the petitioner’s submissions during a personal hearing. However, an order of rejection dated 06.09.2019 claimed the petitioner did not respond to a notice on the same date, which is deemed incorrect. Consequently, the impugned order dated 06.09.2019, considered to violate principles of natural justice, is nullified.

Additionally, reference is made to Order No.1 of 2020 by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes, Customs, specified in S.O. 2064 (E) dated 25.06.2020. This order relates to the cancellation of registration under section 29(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The section delineates grounds for cancellation, including contravention of Act provisions, failure to furnish returns, non-commencement of business within a specified period, or obtaining registration through fraudulent means. However, it mandates that registration cannot be canceled without affording the concerned person an opportunity to be heard.

The summary outlines a legal case involving a petitioner and respondents, concerning the cancellation of registration under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner had appeared before the respondents on 29.08.2019, and despite this, an order of rejection was issued on 06.09.2019, incorrectly stating that the petitioner did not respond to a notice issued on the same date. This error led to the quashing of the impugned order dated 06.09.2019 due to its violation of the principles of natural justice.

The summary then delves into the relevant provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, specifically section 29(2) which outlines the circumstances for cancellation of registration by the proper officer, such as contravention of Act provisions, non-filing of returns, non-commencement of business, or fraudulent registration. It also references section 169(1) regarding the service of notice, and section 107(1) for filing an appeal against any decision or order passed by an adjudicating authority.

Additionally, the summary mentions section 30(1) which allows for the application for revocation of cancellation of registration within thirty days from the date of service of the cancellation order. It also discusses section 107(4), empowering the Appellate Authority to review decisions if satisfied.

Overall, the summary provides an overview of the legal arguments presented by both parties, highlighting the procedural errors and relevant statutory provisions in the case.

he summary provided outlines a legal proceeding where a petitioner challenges an order of rejection dated 06.09.2019, claiming a violation of natural justice. Mr. G. Natarajan, representing the petitioner, argues that the petitioner did appear before the respondent on 29.08.2019, as acknowledged in a communication from the Deputy Commissioner. However, the rejection order erroneously states that the petitioner did not respond to a notice dated 06.09.2019, which is factually incorrect. Therefore, Mr. Natarajan contends that the rejection order should be quashed due to this violation of natural justice.

The discussion then transitions to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Order No.1 of 2020, which outlines the circumstances under which registration under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 can be cancelled. These circumstances include contravention of Act provisions, non-filing of returns, non-commencement of business, or fraudulent registration. The order emphasizes the necessity of giving the person an opportunity to be heard before cancellation.

Further, it delves into the procedural aspects of serving notices for cancellation, application for revocation within thirty days of the cancellation order, and the timeline for filing appeals against such decisions. It acknowledges that due to the complexity and newness of the Act, some taxpayers failed to meet the strict timelines for revocation applications or appeals.

In essence, the summary encapsulates a legal challenge to an order of rejection on grounds of natural justice, while also discussing the procedural aspects and challenges surrounding the cancellation and revocation of registration under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: