SCN containing the merely the GST Rules without referring the Material Particulars relied upon is not tenable in eyes of law, SCN/ Order set aside

[Rachit Agarwal]

SREEJITH K. PROP. OF M/S SRIDEV TRADERS VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2022 (7) TMI 127 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Hon’ble Court Observation on Facts of Show Cause Notice

1. Show cause notice is not tenable in eye of law inasmuch as the same is found without any material particulars, which a prudent person would be able to respond.
2. Upon bare perusal of the contents of the show cause notice, we find that the reason recorded by the respondent authority is a mere incorporation of the relevant ground appearing in the Rules framed thereunder.
3. The show cause notice should have referred to any material particulars as to in what manner the authority has prima facie found that the registration of the writ applicant has been obtained by means of fraud, will ful misstatement or suppression of facts.

Hon’ble Court Observation on Order passed after SCN

1. Upon perusal of the order for cancellation of registration passed by the respondent Authority, it refers to the initiation of proceedings under Section 67(2) of the GGST Act, 2017 in respect of M/s. Sridev Traders, Rajkot.
2. Respondent Authority while passing the said order of cancellation of registration had referred to and relied upon the letter dated 14.12.2021 addressed by the State Tax Officer(1), Enforcement, Division-9, Bhavnagar with regard to the investigation proceedings.
3. The respondent Authority has proceeded to pass the order for cancellation of registration on new material or facts which were neither formed part of the show cause notice nor the same were disclosed to the writ applicant.
4. The aforesaid action of the respondent authority is in breach of violation of principles of natural justice.
5. The writ applicant has been deprived of the reasonable opportunity without putting to their notice about such allegations, more particularly when the cancellation of registration under the GGST Act results into civil and criminal action.

Thus, we find that the respondent authority has failed to adhere to the basic principles of natural justice and such action of the respondent authority is illegal and is required to be interfered with.