Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2022 (7) TMI 760 - HC - GSTCancellation of petitioner s registration - Section 29(2) (a) of U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - HELD THAT - In the present case the show cause notice was issued ostensibly with reference to Section 29(2)(a) of the Act inasmuch as the notice dated 9.7.2021 alleged non-compliance of specified provisions of GST Act or the Rules. However that notice did not disclose the exact violation of the Act or the Rules alleged. Unless that allegation was specified in the notice with details and unless material considered adverse to the petitioner had been confronted to it for the purposes of eliciting its reply thereto the notice dated 9.7.2012 would remain completely vague and mute. A person who may be visited with the notice proposing such a harsh civil consequence had a perfect right to be informed of the exact allegations levelled against him. In a way the harshest penalty contemplated is cancellation or registration of the assessee. The cancellation of the registration has the consequence of bringing the business of an assessee to a complete stand still. Its a death of his business. It has adverse impact on his fundamental right to do business. The petitioner was not confronted either with the substance of the allegation of violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and it is not shown that alleged violations were such as may have warranted cancellation of the petitioner s registration under Section 29(2)(a) of the Act. Also since the material if any that may have founded the basis for such allegation had not been confronted to the petitioner the entire exercise would remain an irregular exercise. In fact the proceedings had been initiated continued and concluded without jurisdictional facts shown to exist. Since the cancellation notice did not refer to the notice dated 8.6.2021 reference made to it in the appeal order is irrelevant and uncalled. Even then it does not make out allegation of violation of Section 29(2)(a) of the Act. Let the registration of the petitioner be restored forthwith - Petition allowed.
|