TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f registration dated 06.06.2020 have already been challenged before this Court in W.P.No.8167/2020 and cannot be challenged in the present writ petition. Pursuant to the order passed in W.P.No.8167/2020, respondent no.4 has issued the notice dated 03.07.2020 to the petitioner. There is no jurisdictional error in the said notice. The petitioner has made his representation on 06.07.2020 and has been given a personal hearing by respondent no.4 and thereafter, he has passed the order dated 10.07.2020. Thus, the said order is a speaking order and it records the reasons for rejecting the application of the petitioner for revocation of cancellation of registration. The intimation to the petitioner dated 21.07.2020 is pursuant to the order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y canceling the registration of the petitioner under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CGST Act') and thereafter refusing to revoke the cancellation of registration, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 3. The petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the business of trading in bath fittings and sanitary ware. It was duly registered as 'taxable person' under the provisions of the CGST Act read with the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the KGST Act'). The registration number of the petitioner is GSTIN29AAFCM9224N1ZU. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that it has been regularly filing its monthly returns disc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , respondent no.4, who is the Officer with competent jurisdiction, issued a notice under Section 30 read with Section 29, Rules 21(b) and 23 of the CGST Act and the KGST Act and the Rules, 2017 to the petitioner asking him to show cause in respect of cancellation of its registration and a personal hearing was also afforded to the petitioner. 9. The petitioner submitted a reply on 06.07.2020 justifying its actions and prayed for revocation of the order of cancellation of registration and for restoration of the registration certificate. After hearing the petitioner, respondent no.4 by an order dated 10.07.2020 rejected the application for revocation of cancellation of registration. Subsequently, another communication dated 21.07.2020 has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rror in jurisdiction in issuance of show cause notice and the order of cancellation of registration and the order of rejection of his application to revoke the order of cancellation. 14. It is the contention of the petitioner that apart from the show cause notices and the orders passed by the respondents, the office of Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru had issued a show cause notice dated 23.12.2019 in respect of demand of certain amounts from the petitioner for alleged violation of various provisions of the CGST Act and the same is yet to be adjudicated. Without adjudicating the same, the respondents ought not to have proceeded for cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner. 15. It is further contended that respondent no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner in indulging in circular trading i.e., invoices or bills have been issued without supply of goods in violation of the provisions of the CGST Act and the CGST Rules for the period from July 2017 to December 2018 and there was no allegation of violation of any law for the current period when the order of canceling the registration was issued. It is further contended that the impugned orders are in violation of all known principles of natural justice and are very harsh. For the said reasons, the petitioner has sought them to be set aside. 16. Per contra, the respondents have contended that once the petitioner has given up the challenge to the constitutional validity of the provisions of the CGST Act and the CGST Rules made there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of cancellation and the order rejecting the application for revocation of cancellation are passed by proper officer. The show cause notice dated 18.03.2020 and the order of cancellation of registration dated 06.06.2020 have already been challenged before this Court in W.P.No.8167/2020 and cannot be challenged in the present writ petition. Pursuant to the order passed in W.P.No.8167/2020, respondent no.4 has issued the notice dated 03.07.2020 to the petitioner. There is no jurisdictional error in the said notice. The petitioner has made his representation on 06.07.2020 and has been given a personal hearing by respondent no.4 and thereafter, he has passed the order dated 10.07.2020. Thus, the said order is a speaking order and it record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
