9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d placed on record. The petitioner states, he was granted registration under the UPGST Act, 2017. Initially a show cause notice proposing to cancel the petitioner's registration was uploaded on the GST Portal. It is dated 5.4.2018. That notice was wholly unintelligible, inasmuch as substance of the notice/reasons appeared in garbage language/symbols. This fact is admitted to the State. According to the learned Standing Counsel, realizing the above mistake, the respondent authorities issued a physical notice to the petitioner on the same date. Its copy has been produced along with the written instructions and has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner. Pursuant thereto the respondent further claims to have passed an order d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as "active". Occasioned by that the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector-17, Ghaziabad wrote to the Joint Commissioner (IT), Commercial Tax, Lucknow, dated 25.6.2020 seeking reconciliation of the aforesaid discrepancy. Consequent to that communication, on 15.7.2020 the impugned order regarding cancellation of petitioner's registration has been served on the petitioner. Thus according to the learned Standing Counsel, due notice had been issued to the petitioner and thereafter the order dated 30.6.2018 was passed to cancel the petitioner's registration. Only technical issues have been resolved by means of the impugned order dated 15.7.2020 and that order does not adjudicate the rights of the parties. In fact it has no indep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to contain the reason to cancel the registration are "?", only. As to the physical copy of the notice claimed to have been served, we find that the instructions produced by the learned Standing Counsel only contain a copy of that communication but there is neither a firm assertion nor any proof of service of such notice. The narrative appended to the instructions received also does not recite in any way that the physical copy of the notice had been served on the petitioner, on any particular date. Same is the position with respect to the order dated 30.6.2018. In fact that order is not even claimed to have been uploaded on the GST Portal. In such circumstances, reliance placed by the Respondent State Authorities on the application made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... celling the petitioner's registration is found to be wholly ex-parte being contrary to the mandatory requirement of the first proviso to Section 29(2) of the Act. As to the delay, the petitioner has explained the same on account of the spread of the pandemic COVID-19. In the peculiar facts of the present case as have been noted above, we lift the bar of alternative remedy as we find 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 releg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
