2025 (7) TMI 329 - HC - GST

Cancellation of registration fo petitioner on the ground of non-furnishing of GST returns for a continuous period of six months - necessary SCN u/s 142(1)(A) of the CGST Act had not been issued prior to the commencement of the proceedings culminating in the demand order - demand order as well as the show cause notices were issued after the expiry of period of limitation under Section 73(10) and 70(2) of the GST Act - adequate opportunity was not given to the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - In the present case it was not disputed by the Revenue that no such notice under Section 142(1)(A) had come to be served on the petitioner prior to the assessment proceedings being taken up. The Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the demand order dated 28.12.2023 and remanding the matter back to the assessing authority for completing the assessment after following the necessary procedure set out under the provisions of the GST as well as the rules made thereunder. Needless to say the period between the date of the passing of the impugned order till the receipt of this order shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation.

Summary

Summary:The Andhra Pradesh High Court, per Hon'ble Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, set aside the demand order dated 28.12.2023 issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 against the petitioner, a GST-registered cell phone seller. The petitioner challenged the order on grounds including non-issuance of a mandatory show cause notice under Section 142(1)(A) prior to assessment proceedings, violation of limitation periods under Sections 73(10) and 70(2), and breach of natural justice.The Court relied on its prior rulings (notably W.P.No.35710 of 2022 and New Morning Star Travels vs. Deputy Commissioner, 2023 (12 Centax 198 (AP)) holding that "non-issuance of a notice under Section 142(1)(A) for any assessment period prior to the amendment of Section 142(1)(A) carried out on 15.10.2020 would render any assessment proceedings invalid." The Revenue did not dispute the absence of such notice.Accordingly, the Court held the demand order invalid and remanded the matter to the assessing authority to complete assessment in accordance with statutory procedure under the GST Act and rules. The Court excluded the period from the impugned order to receipt of this order for limitation purposes and made no order as to costs.