9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 98 - HC - GSTProvisional Attachment of Bank Account/Property - Section 83 of the CGST/SGST Act 2017 - HELD THAT - It appears that despite Respondent No. 2 being put to notice of the filing of this petition which was served on 2nd December 2022 Respondent No. 2 proceeded to pass an order dated 2nd January 2023 cancelling the Petitioner s registration. It also appears that the impugned order takes within its ambit some issues which are not part of the show cause notice. There is no reason to not accept the Petitioner s case that Respondent No. 2 acted in an arbitrary manner in exercising powers vested in him when he passed the impugned order in breach of the principles of natural justice. In these circumstances there can be no alternative but to set aside not only the show cause notice but the impugned order dated 2nd January 2023 cancelling the Petitioner s registration - Application disposed off.
Issues involved: Arbitrary cancellation of CGST registration, breach of principles of natural justice, validity of show cause notice, exercise of powers u/s 83 of CGST/SGST Act, 2017.
The High Court of Bombay heard the case where Respondent No. 2, the Superintendent, acted arbitrarily in canceling the Petitioner's CGST registration. The show cause notice issued to the Petitioner was peculiarly short, calling for a response the next day at a specific time. The Petitioner submitted a reply to the notice, but the Joint Commissioner issued orders for provisional attachment of assets u/s 83 of the CGST/SGST Act. Subsequently, the Petitioner approached the Court, alleging arbitrariness in Respondent No. 2's actions and a violation of natural justice principles, as the Petitioner was not given a proper hearing before adverse orders were passed. Despite being aware of the petition, Respondent No. 2 proceeded to cancel the Petitioner's registration, including issues not part of the original show cause notice. The Court found that Respondent No. 2 acted arbitrarily and in breach of natural justice principles. Consequently, the Court set aside both the show cause notice and the order canceling the registration, allowing Respondent No. 2 to issue a fresh show cause notice, providing the Petitioner with an opportunity to respond in accordance with the law. The Court also emphasized the importance of ensuring that show cause notices regarding dealer registrations are not only uploaded on web portals but also sent directly to the dealers via email or hand delivery to facilitate effective responses. The case was disposed of with no costs incurred.
|
