9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 871 - HC - GSTCancellation of GST registration of petitioner - rejection on the ground of time limitation - vague and non speaking order - order passed without hearing the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It appears that after the sad demise of husband of the petitioner - Subi Devi no care is taken to comply with the provisions of GST Act by the brother-inlaw of the petitioner and no returns were filed and accordingly no response was also given to the show cause notice issued by the respondent department. Petition disposed off.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary issues considered by the Court in this case were: 1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration of M/s. Bhagwati Construction was justified, given the circumstances surrounding the non-compliance with GST requirements following the proprietor's death. 2. Whether the appellate authority's decision to reject the appeal for revocation of cancellation due to the delay in filing was appropriate, especially considering the petitioner's circumstances. 3. Whether the petitioner, as the legal heir, is entitled to file an application for the revocation of the cancellation of GST registration and have the application considered on its merits. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Cancellation of GST Registration The relevant legal framework involves the provisions under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which allows for the cancellation of registration if a taxpayer fails to comply with the GST requirements, such as filing returns. The show cause notice dated 2.11.2022 cited "fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts" as grounds for cancellation. The Court's interpretation focused on the procedural fairness of the cancellation process. The petitioner argued that the notice was not received, and the order was passed ex-parte. The Court did not delve into the merits of whether the notice was served but acknowledged the procedural lapse due to the petitioner's lack of awareness following the proprietor's death. Key evidence included the sequence of events after the proprietor's death and the subsequent lack of compliance. The Court noted that the business was being managed by the brother-in-law, who failed to comply with GST requirements. The Court concluded that while the cancellation was procedurally flawed, the petitioner should be allowed to rectify the situation by applying for revocation. 2. Rejection of Appeal Due to Delay The legal framework under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, governs the appeal process and the timeline for filing appeals. The appellate authority rejected the appeal due to the delay, citing the lack of power to condone the delay. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's argument that the delay was due to the lack of knowledge about the proceedings, which only came to light after a third party's communication. The Court did not find fault with the appellate authority's decision but recognized the extenuating circumstances that led to the delay. The Court's reasoning was sympathetic to the petitioner's situation, given the death of the original proprietor and the subsequent management issues. 3. Right to File for Revocation of Cancellation The Court considered whether the petitioner, as the legal heir, could file an application for revocation of the cancellation of registration. The Court concluded that the petitioner should be allowed to file such an application to regularize the registration. The Court directed the petitioner to file the application within a week and instructed the respondents to consider it within two weeks, ensuring a fair hearing and decision in accordance with the law. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court established the principle that legal heirs should be given an opportunity to rectify procedural lapses in compliance with GST requirements, especially when the original proprietor has passed away. In its final determination, the Court permitted the petitioner to file an application for revocation of cancellation and directed the respondents to consider it on its merits, providing an opportunity for a hearing. The Court emphasized the need for procedural fairness and the importance of considering extenuating circumstances, such as the death of the proprietor, in compliance-related matters.
|
