2025 (5) TMI 995 - HC - GST

Cancellation of Petitioner s GST registration - petitioner was unaware of issuance of SCN - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - A perusal of the impugned SCN would show that the main reason for cancellation retrospectively is the failure to furnish returns for a period of six months. The Petitioner obviously could not have filed returns for six months as the Petitioner had already applied for cancellation of the GST registration. Therefore this ground in the opinion of the Court is not a sustainable ground for retrospective cancellation and the retrospective cancellation deserves to be set aside. On a query from the Court ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner s GST registration is not subject matter of any other Show Cause Notice under Sections 73 or 74 of the Act in respect of supply of goods and services. The impugned order is set aside. It is directed that the cancellation of the GST registration will take effect from 14th May 2024. It is also clarified that any other proceedings qua the GST No. 07ARNPG2347QlZ8 shall not be effected by the order of this Court - Petition disposed off.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

- Whether the retrospective cancellation of the Petitioner's GST registration from the date of initial registration (1st July, 2017) is legally sustainable.

- Whether the failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months, after the Petitioner had applied for cancellation of GST registration, constitutes valid grounds for cancellation under the GST Act.

- Whether the rejection of the Petitioner's application for cancellation of registration on grounds of non-filing of Profit & Loss account and non-payment of due taxes and interest is justified.

- The legality and propriety of the issuance of Show Cause Notice (SCN) for cancellation of registration after a considerable delay, i.e., almost a year after the Petitioner's application for cancellation.

- The effect of non-response by the Petitioner to the notices issued by the GST Department.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Legality of retrospective cancellation of GST registration from 1st July, 2017

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The GST Act provides for cancellation of registration under specific grounds, including failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months. However, retrospective cancellation from the date of registration is an extreme measure that requires clear justification.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the impugned order cancelled the registration retrospectively from the date of registration, i.e., 1st July, 2017. This was based on the ground that the Petitioner failed to file returns for six continuous months. However, the Petitioner had already applied for cancellation of registration on 15th May, 2023, and thus could not have filed returns for the period after the application.

Key evidence and findings: The SCN dated 14th May, 2024, which was issued a year after the cancellation application, cited failure to furnish returns for six months as the reason for cancellation. The Petitioner did not respond to this SCN. The Court found that the retrospective cancellation was not sustainable because the ground for cancellation was premised on non-filing of returns during a period when the Petitioner had already sought cancellation.

Application of law to facts: Since the Petitioner had applied for cancellation, expecting the registration to cease, penalizing for non-filing returns during this period was not legally tenable. Retrospective cancellation from the date of registration was therefore set aside.

Treatment of competing arguments: The GST Department argued that failure to file returns for six months warranted cancellation. The Petitioner contended that the application for cancellation precluded such failure. The Court sided with the Petitioner, emphasizing procedural fairness and the purpose of cancellation provisions.

Conclusion: Retrospective cancellation from 1st July, 2017 was quashed. Cancellation was to take effect only from the date of SCN issuance, i.e., 14th May, 2024.

Issue 2: Rejection of cancellation application due to non-filing of Profit & Loss account and non-payment of due taxes and interest

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Under GST law, cancellation of registration requires compliance with all statutory obligations, including filing of returns, payment of due taxes, and submission of relevant financial documents such as Profit & Loss accounts to assess liabilities.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Department rejected the Petitioner's cancellation application on 30th April, 2024, citing failure to file P/L accounts and non-payment of taxes on mismatch amounts between GSTR-2A/3B and GSTR-1/3B. The Court noted that the Petitioner had not responded to the notice dated 14th June, 2023, which sought these details.

Key evidence and findings: The Petitioner contended unawareness of the notice. The Court did not delve into the merits of whether the Petitioner was duly served but focused on the procedural lapse of non-response.

Application of law to facts: The statutory requirement to file all due returns and pay taxes before cancellation was not fulfilled by the Petitioner. The Department's rejection was in accordance with the provisions of the GST Act.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Petitioner argued lack of knowledge of the notice. The Department maintained that no response was received. The Court did not overturn the rejection on this ground but emphasized that subsequent cancellation could not be retrospective.

Conclusion: The rejection of cancellation application was upheld as per statutory provisions, but it did not justify retrospective cancellation.

Issue 3: Legality and timing of issuance of Show Cause Notice for cancellation

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The GST Act mandates issuance of a Show Cause Notice before cancellation of registration, allowing the taxpayer an opportunity to be heard. The timing and grounds for such notice must be reasonable and in accordance with procedural fairness.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The SCN dated 14th May, 2024, was issued almost a year after the Petitioner's application for cancellation. The Court found this delay surprising and questioned the validity of initiating cancellation proceedings after such lapse.

Key evidence and findings: The SCN cited failure to file returns for six months as the ground. The Petitioner did not reply or appear for hearing. Registration was suspended effective from the date of SCN.

Application of law to facts: The delay in issuing SCN and the grounds cited were inconsistent with the Petitioner's prior application for cancellation. The Court held that the SCN could not justify retrospective cancellation and must be confined to prospective effect.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Department relied on statutory provisions for cancellation due to non-filing. The Petitioner emphasized the prior application and procedural irregularities. The Court balanced these and ruled against retrospective effect.

Conclusion: The SCN was valid but could not support retrospective cancellation; cancellation was effective only from the date of SCN.

Issue 4: Effect of non-response by the Petitioner to notices and hearings

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Non-response to statutory notices can lead to ex parte decisions under GST law. However, principles of natural justice require that notices be properly served and parties given adequate opportunity.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Petitioner did not respond to the notice dated 14th June, 2023, or the SCN dated 14th May, 2024. The Court noted the Petitioner's claim of unawareness of the first notice but did not find sufficient grounds to set aside the rejection of cancellation application.

Key evidence and findings: Non-response led to rejection of cancellation application and eventual cancellation of registration. However, the Court emphasized that despite non-response, retrospective cancellation was not justified.

Application of law to facts: The Court recognized the procedural consequences of non-response but limited the effect of cancellation to prospective dates.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Department relied on non-response as basis for proceeding ex parte. The Petitioner highlighted lack of notice. The Court balanced procedural fairness and statutory compliance.

Conclusion: Non-response justified rejection and cancellation but not retrospective effect.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"The Petitioner obviously could not have filed returns for six months as the Petitioner had already applied for cancellation of the GST registration. Therefore this ground, in the opinion of the Court, is not a sustainable ground for retrospective cancellation and the retrospective cancellation deserves to be set aside."

"It is directed that the cancellation of the GST registration will take effect from 14th May, 2024. It is also clarified that any other proceedings qua the GST No.