|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 161 Records
-
2023 (3) TMI 873 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner was not granted personal hearing in the impugned assessment proceedings - Validity of assessment order - Section 75(4) of the GST Act 2017 - HELD THAT:- Section 75(4) of the GST Act 2017 makes it clear that in cases, where an adverse decision is taken by the Assessing Officer against the assessee, personal hearing is mandatory. Admittedly, in the assessment proceedings, pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18, no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner. This being the case, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice as the impugned assessment order has been passed contrary to Section 75(4) of the GST Act 2017, which mandates personal hearing, the impugned assessment order dated 31.10.2022, pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18 has to be quashed and the matter has to be remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration, on merits and in accordance with law.
The impugned assessment order dated 31.10.2022 passed in respect of the assessment year 2017-18 is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration, on merits and in accordance with law - Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (3) TMI 872 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for more than one year - Since the petitioner was not getting figures of its output liability which could have been set off with the inputs available, the petitioner filed monthly GSTR-3B as NIL for the financial year 2017-18 (Annexure P-9) as well as for the financial year 2018-19 to avoid late fee. - Subsequently, the petitioner claimed its total input tax credit in the month of August 2019 in Form GSTR-3B.
Seeking writ of certiorari (a writ issued by a superior court for the reexamination of an action of a lower court) - Constitutional Validity of amendment dated 09.10.2019 (Annexure P-7) amending Rule 61 of the Central GST Rules, 2017 with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017 - seeking unblocking of credit
HELD THAT:- A perusal of the notification dated 02.11.2021 issued by Govt. of India Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs shows that the Department has laid down guidelines for disallowing debit of electronic credit ledger under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017. The detailed guidelines have been issued whereby powers under Rule 86A can be exercised by the Officers on the monetary limits prescribed under Rule 3.1.
Since the guidelines are very clear that after one year, the registered person would be able to debit input tax credit so disallowed. This petition, at this stage is being disposed of by giving direction to the respondents to unblock the credit ledger of the petitioner which has been blocked vide Annexure P-14 and P-15 as period of 3 years have expired on 28.01.2023 after the credit ledger was blocked on 28.01.2020 (Annexure P- 15) - challenge to the vires of Rule 61 of the Central GST Rules, 2017 (Annexure P-7) and notification dated 10.09.2018 (Annexure P-5) shall remain open.
Application disposed off.
-
2023 (3) TMI 871 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Recovery of demand of GST - Right to file the appeal before GST Tribunal when constituted - Demand to deposit outstanding amount against the State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) - It is the petitioner's case that the show-cause notice was not served upon the petitioner, rather it obtained a copy of the said show-cause notice subsequently on 18.12.2018 - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Section 112 of the BGST Act provides for an appeal before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, which, admittedly, has not been constituted. Petitioner, thus, has a grievance that had the Tribunal been functioning it would have availed the remedy by preferring an appeal against the order of the Appellate Authority upon payment of the amount as contemplated under sub-Section (8) of Section 112 of the Act. By deeming fiction, the recovery proceedings for balance amount would have been stayed by virtue of sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the BGST Act.
It is apparent thus that the petitioner's statutory right to prefer appeal under Section 112 of the BGST Act still survives and is not barred by limitation. The petitioner is not only willing to prefer an appeal, but claims to have deposited the requisite amount for preferring Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, as also for stay of recovery proceedings as per Section 112(9) of the BGST Act. On account of the absence of the Tribunal, petitioner has not been able to do so.
The situation arising out of non-existence of the Tribunal has been acknowledged by the State of Bihar by exercising its power under Section 172 of the Act - thus, it would be unjust for the State respondents to proceed for recovery of the balance amount, when they have not constituted the Appellate Tribunal.
This Court would find that the petitioner has been able to make out a strong prima facie case. On account of non constitution of the forum of Appellate Tribunal, by the authorities, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the statutory remedy under Section 112 (8) and (9) of the BGST Act. The Court, therefore, is of the opinion that interest of justice and balance of convenience also lies in favour of grant of interim relief to the petitioner - the impugned notice stands stayed.
-
2023 (3) TMI 870 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Appeal filed by petitioner rejected - rejection merely on the grounds of being barred by limitation - ex-parte order.
HELD THAT:- The delay stands sufficiently explained on account of COVID-19 restrictions.
Revenue, states that he has no objection if the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority for deciding the appeal afresh. Also, while considering and deciding the appeal, the ground of delay shall not be taken into account and the appeal shall be decided on merits. Also, during pendency of the appeal, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.
The present petition disposed off in the mutually agreeable terms.
-
2023 (3) TMI 826 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Rejection to grant any interim order - concurrent jurisdiction to investigate the same issue - appellants are aggrieved by the SCN issued by the respondent on the ground that the very same issue is now subject matter of consideration by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Bureau of Investigation, South Bengal (HQ), who has issued notice dated 7th November, 2022 - HELD THAT:- If the subject issue is one and the same or if the subject is inter-related, it is always better that one authority adjudicates the matter. By directing the assessee to face multiple authorities may result in conflicting decisions. Therefore, not only in the interest of the assessee but in the interest of the revenue also, one authority should take the decision. Admittedly, the Bureau of Investigation, South Bengal is a centralised agency and if that agency has already taken up the matter for consideration and the concerned Assistant Commissioner has issued notice dated 7th November, 2022, it is but appropriate that issues be considered by the said authority including the issue, which has been raised by the respondent in the show cause notice dated 29th December, 2022.
The appeal as well as the writ petition are disposed of by directing the respondent to place the entire file pertaining to the show cause notice dated 29th December, 2022 to the Special Commissioner, State Tax, Bureau of Investigation, South Bengal, Headquarters, Kolkata, who shall in turn direct the said show cause notice and file be placed before the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Bureau of Investigation, South Bengal (HQ) and to adjudicate the show cause notice along with the proceedings already initiated pursuant to the notice dated 7th November, 2022.
-
2023 (3) TMI 825 - TRIPURA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of writ petition - without final outcome of the proceeding initiated by the respondent no. 4, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition - Validity of authorization for inspection and search - failure to produce any valid document regarding the mode of business operation of the petitioner - HELD THAT:- Annexure XIII, dated 25.08.2021, which is under challenge in this writ petition, clearly shows that if the petitioner fails to submit any response/reply to the liability intimated under Section 73(5) of the Act to this writ petition in Part-B within the time stipulated, in that case, Show-Cause notice will be issued against the petitioner. Thus, it is aptly clear that Annexure XII (dated 25.08.2021) is not a show-cause notice, which the petitioner prays to quash in this writ petition. Moreover, the proceeding initiated by the respondent no. 4 against the petitioner is pending and without any outcome of the proceeding, the petitioner had approached this court.
This court feels that the present writ petition which is filed by the petitioner is at the pre-mature stage, and accordingly, the same is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. The petitioner has expressed that the petitioner has already paid the taxes, and he is not liable to pay any further tax and with regard to the consideration, the tax authorities have not considered in its entirety.
The writ petition is premature and not maintainable, and therefore, stands dismissed.
-
2023 (3) TMI 790 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - case of the petitioner is that he has not been able to get the show cause notice issued by the respondent and, therefore, he could not submit the reply within the stipulated time - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The present petitioner is also entitled for the benefit of the order passed by this Court in (Technosum India Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow Vs. Union of India and others) [[2022 (9) TMI 1412 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]]. In the said judgment, the Court has held that the impugned order does not assign any reason whatsoever for cancelling registration of the petitioner and is passed only on the ground that reply to the show cause notice is not given. The non-submission of reply to the show cause cannot be a ground for cancellation of the registration.
In view thereof, the present petitioner is also entitled for the same relief. The benefit of the order in Technosum India Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow shall also be made available to the present petitioner.
The present petition is allowed.
-
2023 (3) TMI 789 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Validity of order issued u/s 73(9) with DRC-07 - Violation of principles of natural justice - opportunity of hearing not provided (audi alterem partem) - ex-parte order - Condonation of delay in filing appeal - appeal rejected on the ground of limitation after finding a delay of two month - rejection of Input Tax Credit Claim by the petitioner in Form GSTR3B - HELD THAT:- This Court, notwithstanding the statutory remedy, is not precluded from interfering where, ex facie, form an opinion that the order is bad in law. This we say so, for two reasons-(a) violation of principles of natural justice, i.e. Fair opportunity of hearing. No sufficient time was afforded to the petitioner to represent his case; (b) order passed ex parte in nature, does not assign any sufficient reasons even decipherable from the record, as to how the officer could determine the amount due and payable by the assessee. The order, ex parte in nature, passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, entails civil consequences; (c) Also the authorities not to have adjudicated the matter on the attending facts and circumstances.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (3) TMI 788 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Validity of order issued u/s 73(9) with DRC-07 - Violation of principles of natural justice - allegation is that the impugned order is highly cryptic, misconceived, nonspeaking - ex-parte order - opportunity of hearing not granted - recovery of the amount of tax, interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- This Court, notwithstanding the statutory remedy, is not precluded from interfering where, ex facie, it is opined that the order is bad in law. This is for two reasons- (a) violation of principles of natural justice, i.e. Fair opportunity of hearing. No sufficient time was afforded to the petitioner to represent his case; (b) order passed ex parte in nature, does not assign any reasons sufficient even decipherable from the record, as to how the officer could determine the amount due and payable by the assessee. The order, ex parte in nature, passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, entails civil consequences. We also find the authorities not to have adjudicated the matter on the attending facts and circumstances.
The impugned order as also Summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 is set aside - petition disposed off.
-
2023 (3) TMI 787 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT
Classification of goods - rate of GST - supply of PVC floor mats (Cars) - whether the goods supplied by the applicant would merit classification under CTH 3918 or 8708? - HELD THAT:- Going by the tariff heading, section notes, chapter notes, HSN notes, already reproduced, it is opined that the goods merit classification under CTH 8708 - What is therefore excluded is similar goods as mentioned above of plastics falling under Chapter 39. As is evident, PVC floor mats, for four wheel motor vehicles, does not fall in the exclusion - Again it is evident that the floor mats for four wheel vehicles [cars] made of poly vinyl chloride [PVC] supplied by the applicant does not fall within the exclusion.
The applicant's claim that his supply would fall under CTH 3918 by relying on the rulings of IN RE : M/S. SOFT TURF [2021 (7) TMI 752 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, KERALA] & IN RE: NATIONAL PLASTIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED [2018 (8) TMI 1650 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING MAHARASHTRA] is not legally tenable.
Thus, the impugned goods i.e. PVC floor mats for use in cars supplied by the applicant is classifiable under CTH 8708 & applicable rate of GST would be 28%
-
2023 (3) TMI 786 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT
Reverse charge mechanism or not - purchase of raw tobacco from farmer (including naturally broken tobacco known as 'tobacco leaves or tobacco bhukko') - rate of tax in case of coating process is done on unmanufactured tobacco, if the applicant carried out the process of coating on the tobacco belonging to other person (job work basis) whether registered or otherwise.
HELD THAT:- The entire process undertaken at the fanners end and at the applicant's end is discussed supra and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. Of the two questions posed in Sr. No. 14, in Form GST ARA-01, we find that the first question is whether the applicant is liable to discharge GST under reverse charge mechanism [RCM], in case of purchase of raw tobacco [tobacco leaves or bhukko] from farmer. The applicant in his summary clearly states that according to them they are liable for GST under RCM @ 5% - in terms of Notification No. 4/2017-Central Tax (Rate), in case of intra state supply of tobacco leaves, falling under 2401 by an agriculturist to a registered person, GST is to be paid under RCM by the recipient. Now "agriculturist" is defined under section 2(7) of the CGST Act, 2017 to mean an individual or a Hindu Undivided Family, who undertakes cultivation of land by own labour, or by the labour of family, or by servants on wages payable in cash or kind or by hired labour under personal supervision or the personal supervision of any member of the family. Therefore, in case of purchase of tobacco leaves/bhukko from the agriculturist, the applicant is liable to pay GST on RCM basis at 5% [2.5% CGST and 2.5% SGST] in terms of notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate), Sr. No. 109 of Schedule 1.
The applicant is liable to pay GST on forward charge basis at 5% [2.5% CGST and 2.5% SGST] in terms of notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate), Sr. No. 109 of Schedule I, subject to the condition that they are engaged in trading of tobacco leaves/bhukko, procured from agriculturist, on as such basis i.e. without undertaking any further process on the same.
Rate of GST in case of sale/supply of coated tobacco broken leaves in gunny bag - HELD THAT:- The applicants case is that this coating of natural gum does not amount to manufacture as defined under Section 2(72) of the CGST Act, 2017. Under the CGST Act, 2017, it is found that manufacture is defined as processing of raw material/ inputs in any manner which results in emergence of a new product having a distinct name, character and use. The applicant has stated that no new product emerges post coating. The applicant has also relied upon case laws to substantiate his plea.
Though the applicant has undertaken the above process of coating, consequent to the cleaning process, removal of unwanted substances & thereafter cutting and grading of leaves procured from the agriculturist, in terms of the HSN notes, it still remains an unmanufactured tobacco. This is more so because even in terms of section 2(72) of the CGST Act, 2017, which defines manufacture, since no new product emerges post the coating process, we hold that the product is classifiable under CTH 2401 as ''unmanufactured raw tobacco leaves'. We further hold that the applicant is liable to pay GST at 28% [14 % CGST and 14 % SGST] in terms of notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate), Sr. No. 13 of Schedule IV.
The applicant has also sought a ruling in respect of job work of coating done on the tobacco leaves by them in respect of tobacco leaves supplied by other registered persons. CBEC vide its circular No. 126/45/2019-GST has already clarified that entry at item (id) covers only job work services as defined in section 2 (68) of CGST Act, 2017, that is, services by way of treatment or processing undertaken by a person on goods belonging to another registered person. In terms of the said clarification we hold that the applicant is liable for payment of GST at the rate of 12 % (6% CGST and 6% SGST) in terms of notification No. 20/2019-C.T. (Rate), dated 30-9-2019 on the job work process of coating done in respect of tobacco leaves supplied by other registered persons.
-
2023 (3) TMI 728 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - GST Tribunal has not been constituted under Section 109 of the CGST Act - order passed by the first appellate authority under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act - Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - non-filing of returns - HELD THAT:- This is an order passed by the first appellate authority under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act. As per sub-section (1) of Section 107 of the CGST Act, limitation for filing appeal is three months from the date of communication of the order appealed against. Under sub-section (4) of Section 107 of the CGST Act, the appellate authority may allow the appeal to be presented within a further period of one month, provided sufficient cause is shown by the appellant.
Though the lower appellate authority may be right in holding that while it may allow filing of an appeal beyond the limitation of three months for a further period of one month, therefore, by extension of limitation beyond the extended period of one month delay beyond the extended period of one month cannot be condoned, we are of the view that such a stand taken by respondent No.1 may adversely affect the petitioner. This is more so because respondent No.2 had suo motu cancelled the GST registration of the petitioner on the ground of non-filing of returns and as GST Tribunal has not been constituted under Section 109 of the CGST Act, petitioner would be left without any remedy.
The issue pertains to cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper if the entire matter is remanded back to respondent No.2 to reconsider the case of the petitioner and thereafter to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2023 (3) TMI 727 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - availability of equally efficacious and alternative remedy by way of appeal - Seeking release of goods alongwith vehicle - HELD THAT:- Without expressing any opinion on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions, it is deemed just and appropriate to dispose of this petition reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to such remedies as available in law including approaching the First Appellate Authority by way of challenge to the Annexure – A and B and in accordance with law.
It is further directed that having regard to the perishable nature of the subject goods involved in the present petition, in the peculiar / special facts and circumstances of the instant case, the respondents are directed to release the Conveyance No.GJ-03-AX-7785 and GJ-03- BY-8577 along with the goods contained therein in favour of the petitioner, within a period of 48 hours from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
It is made clear that the present order is passed in the peculiar / special facts and circumstances of the instant case and shall not be treated as a precedent nor have any precedential value for any purpose whatsoever Subject to the aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed of.
-
2023 (3) TMI 726 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Validity of action of the respondent appellate authority concerned in not disposing his appeal in question which was filed on 27th March, 2019 - hearing of the appeal in question has already been concluded on 18th January, 2021 but till date no final order has been passed on the said appeal - HELD THAT:- This writ petition is disposed of by directing the authority concerned to pass a final order on the aforesaid appeal in question within 8 weeks from the date of communication of this order.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (3) TMI 684 - SC ORDER
Grant of bail -Grant of bail - Direction for a deposit of sum of Rs.2 crores - HELD THAT:- The facts of this case are identical to SUBHASH CHOUHAN VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. [2023 (1) TMI 1168 - SC ORDER].
Following the reasons given in the said judgment and order, it is hereby provided that the condition directing the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.2 crores is not liable to be sustained and is hereby set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2023 (3) TMI 683 - SUPREME COURT
Territorial jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain and try the writ petition - Levy of GST on purchase and sale of lottery tickets - Seeking deletion from the array of respondents - can a notification issued under a statute could be made a subject matter of challenge? - According to the appellant, a notification issued under a statute enacted by a State legislature cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny within the jurisdiction of a high court of a different State, more so when no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of that high court.
Whether the High Court was justified in returning the finding that “at least a part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court” and premised on such a finding, to dismiss the applications?
HELD THAT:- The High Court, while delivering the impugned judgment and order, proceeded to hold that the writ petitioners were aggrieved not only by the impugned notification issued by the appellant under the GGST Act but also by the act of the Central Government in issuing the impugned notifications under the CGST Act as well as the IGST Act seeking to levy tax (GST) on lotteries organized, promoted and conducted by the State of Sikkim. The High Court further noted that it was not the actual incidence of GST under the GGST Act which is impugned in the writ petitions but the provisions of law made by the Parliament as well as the respective State Governments including the State of Goa by which they sought to levy GST on lotteries. Considering the prayers made in the writ petition, the High Court was further of the view that, at least, a part of the cause of action had arisen with its jurisdiction.
This is a case where clause (2) of Article 226 has been invoked by the High Court to clothe it with the jurisdiction to entertain and try the writ petitions. The Constitutional mandate of clause (2) is that the ‘cause of action’, referred to therein, must at least arise in part within the territories in relation to which the high court exercises jurisdiction when writ powers conferred by clause (1) are proposed to be exercised, notwithstanding that the seat of the Government or authority or the residence of the person is not within those territories. The expression ‘cause of action’ has not been defined in the Constitution - the party invoking the writ jurisdiction has to disclose that the integral facts pleaded in support of the cause of action do constitute a cause empowering the high court to decide the dispute and that, at least, a part of the cause of action to move the high court arose within its jurisdiction. Such pleaded facts must have a nexus with the subject matter of challenge based on which the prayer can be granted. Those facts which are not relevant or germane for grant of the prayer would not give rise to a cause of action conferring jurisdiction on the court. These are the guiding tests.
The High Court ought not to have dismissed the applications of the appellant without considering the petition memo which has no semblance of a case having been made out as to how part of cause of action arose within the territorial limits of the High Court or without any pleading as to how any right has been affected within the territory of Sikkim.
There are no hesitation to hold that the High Court erred in dismissing the applications filed by the appellant. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 6th June, 2018 is set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2023 (3) TMI 682 - SC ORDER
Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - appellant submitted that there is no final assessment made under GST Act and unless such determination is made, the appellant cannot be said to be under a legal liability to make any payment much less deposit any amount as a condition for grant of anticipatory bail.
HELD THAT:- In an identical matter in Criminal Appeal No. 186/2023, Subhash Chouhan Vs. Union of India, this Court vide Judgment dated 20.01.2023 [2023 (1) TMI 1168 - SC ORDER] set aside the order passed by the High Court imposing a condition of deposit while granting bail to the appellant therein.
It is provided that in case the appellant is arrested, he shall be liable to be released forthwith, subject to such terms and conditions which the Trial Court/Investigating agency may deem fit and proper to impose.
Appeal allowed.
-
2023 (3) TMI 681 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Application for pre-arrest bail - Fraudulent availment of ITC - allegation is that the third party or operator obtained the registration with the intent to utilize the Input Tax Credit (ITC) - HELD THAT:- It prima facie appears that the matter needs to be investigated thoroughly by the first respondent. The applicant must cooperate with the investigation. On the basis of the materials i.e. whatsapp chats, the statements of the accused, invoices, the first respondent is justified in contending that it is necessary to record the statement of the applicant to find out his involvement in the case and other operators of the scam of ‘M/s. Platinum Trading Company’. The applicant has not attended to record his statement despite issuing witness summons on 20/5/2022, 30/5/2022 and 3/6/2022 and he is not cooperating with the investigation. In paragraph 9 of the reply filed by the first respondent, it is stated that in the summons to witness the first respondent never mentioned about the arrest of the applicant. The first respondent just wants to record his statement and to verify any books of account he is having regarding M/s. Platinum Trading Company.
From the record it appears that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation and even not willing to attend pursuant to the issuance of the witness summons - the present application is premature and the apprehension that the applicant will be arrested without following due procedure of law is unfounded. The first respondent is bound to comply with the mandate of the law and upon adhering to the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court before effecting arrest.
The apprehension of the applicant that he will be arrested is without any basis. The applicant is not cooperating even for the purpose of recording his statement pursuant to the issuance of the summons to witness. The first respondent submitted that they have reasons to suspect the involvement of the applicant. Undoubtedly, after recording the statement, if the first respondent had reason to believe that the arrest is imperative, the applicant may at that stage have an apprehension that he is likely to be arrested. It is open for the applicant at the appropriate stage to apply for anticipatory bail. The applicant must first cooperate with the investigation which according to the first respondent is only for the purpose of recording his statement and to verify the books of accounts the applicant is having regarding M/s. Platinum Trading Company.
Reserving the liberty of the applicant to apply for anticipatory bail, at a later stage, the present application is rejected as premature.
-
2023 (3) TMI 680 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Cancellation of the GST registration of petitioner - vague SCN issued - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- After having carefully perused all the material documents placed in this appeal, it is found that the show cause notice, which was issued to the appellants is devoid of any material and is absolutely vague. The appellants have not been informed as to what was the alleged fraud and alleged willful mis-statement made by the appellants. The appellants denied the allegations. However, the authority confirmed the proposal of cancellation by a single line order once again without any reason.
When the matter was carried on appeal to the appellate authority, certain fresh facts have been brought in and an elaborate order has been passed by the appellate authority. It is no doubt true that an appellate authority or any administrate or quasi-judicial authority is expected to give detailed reasons to support its conclusion. Nevertheless, the authority has to consider the aspect as to whether the original authority had, at the first instance assigned any reason in support of its conclusion.
On examining the order passed by the original authority, it is found that the same is devoid of any reason. If that be so, the appellate authority ought to have set aside such an order and remanded the matter back to the original authority instead of taking the trouble of trying to validate the order with certain reasons by bringing in fresh facts - the registration granted to the appellants has to be restored.
The appeal and the writ petition are disposed of and the order passed by the appellate authority and the original authority are set aside and the original authority is directed to restore the appellants’ registration of the address at 3rd Floor, 119 Cotton Street, Kolkata – 700 007 within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the server copy of this judgment and order.
-
2023 (3) TMI 679 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - non-filing of GST returns - reason for seeking cancellation of the registration was disclosed as “Discontinuance of business/Closure of business” - HELD THAT:- Since the petitioner’s business was closed and he had applied for cancellation of his GST registration, he did not file his GST returns for the subsequent period.
The respondents passed the impugned order dated 24.08.2022, cancelling the petitioner’s registration with effect from 02.07.2017 - Notice in the present petition was issued on 10.02.2023. However, the respondents have not filed any response to this petition.
Apparently, there is no reason why the petitioner’s cancellation was effected with retrospective effect. It is also clear that the order rejecting the petitioner’s application for cancellation of registration, is unsustainable as it discloses no reason. The show cause notice issued earlier to the petitioner is also cryptic and does not set out any particulars as to why the petitioner’s application for registration was proposed to be rejected.
The present petition is required to be allowed. The respondents are directed to cancel the petitioner’s registration with effect from 31.07.2021, as requested by the petitioner.
|
