TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the first proviso to Section 29(2) of the UPGST Act, 2017. In the facts of the present case, undisputedly the notice that was uploaded on the GST Portal was unintelligible - the bar of alternative remedy is lifted, as it is found that the petitioner's registration was cancelled without issuance of any prior show cause notice. Also, the delay is largely on account of the conduct of the State respondents or conduct attributable to the State respondents as they alone were responsible to update the information on the GST Portal. That not done, the petitioner/citizen may not be relegated to the forum of alternative remedy as his valuable right to do business has been curtailed in violation of principle of natural justice. The order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner. Pursuant thereto the respondent further claims to have passed an order dated 30.6.2018. A copy of the same has also been annexed to the written instructions produced by the learned Standing Counsel. However, the petitioner disputes service of the aforesaid physical copy of the notice dated 5.4.2018 and the order dated 30.6.2018. The written instructions do not make any assertion of service of the notice dated 5.4.2018 and the order dated 30.6.2018 (physical copies), on any date or through any mode. In fact the written instructions refer to and rely upon an application made by the petitioner's Chartered Accountant dated 25.8.2018. It reads: The Assistant Commissioner, Sector-17 Goods and Services Tax Ghaziaba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order dated 15.7.2020 and that order does not adjudicate the rights of the parties. In fact it has no independent existence. Lastly, learned Standing Counsel contends that the petitioner has adequate remedy of appeal against the order dated 30.6.2021 and also to seek recall of that order. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, undeniably cancellation of registration has serious and far reaching consequences on the rights of the dealer/person engaged in any business. Such cancellation may even take away the right to conduct business. Also, in the context of the GST Laws, it has further consequence of upsetting ITC entitlement on sale and purchase by such a person/dealer. Even so, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been uploaded on the GST Portal. In such circumstances, reliance placed by the Respondent State Authorities on the application made by the petitioner's Chartered Accountant (extracted above) is misplaced. The said application nowhere admits the fact of the show cause notice dated 5.4.2018 or the order dated 30.6.2018 having been served on the petitioner. In fact it states that the same had not been received by the petitioner. As to the application to recall the order dated 30.6.2018, the application only states that the petitioner is seeking to file an application to recall that order. It may have been one thing if the status of the petitioner's registration had been reflected cancelled on the GST Portal. On the contrary, l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondents as they alone were responsible to update the information on the GST Portal. That not done, the petitioner/citizen may not be relegated to the forum of alternative remedy as his valuable right to do business has been curtailed in violation of principle of natural justice. Accordingly, the order dated 30.6.2018 cancelling the petitioner's registration is set aside. The matter is remitted to respondent no.3 to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law. At present, learned counsel for the petitioner has been served with the copy of the show cause notice dated 5.4.2018 and the order dated 30.6.2018. It is expected that the petitioner would file his reply within a period of two weeks from today. Upon such reply being filed, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
