9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recting the respondent/s to set aside the penalty of Rs.2,32,014/- imposed upon "GSTIN 07ABSPC2338JIZJ" of the petitioner herein Sh. Ishwar Chand, Proprietor of M/S Bhagwati Trading Company, 656-A, Chandni Chowk, Katra Hira Lal, Delhi-110006. 2. Any other Order/s or Directions which your Lordships may kindly deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this present case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and in the interest of Justice." 2. Learned Counsel for the respondent states that no demand for penalty had been raised and the amount of Rs.2,32,014/- has been computed by the petitioner on its own. 3. The controversy in the present petition relates to levy of penalty for late filing of the GST returns, for the period the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the GSTIN registration was rejected by an order dated 14.12.2020 for the sole reason that the petitioner had not responded to the Show Cause Notice dated 27.10.2020. 11. The petitioner appealed against the said order before the appellate authority and succeeded. 12. The said appeal was allowed by an order dated 26.08.2021. The operative part of the said order reads as under: "9. The Appeal filed by the Appellant for revocation of cancellation of registration is allowed. The Appellant is directed to file all pending returns and make payments towards GST liability within 30 days from the order of revocation of registration. The restoration of registration is made subject to the verification of payment particulars, filing of returns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... why the petitioner's application was rejected. 19. As stated above, the only reason is that the petitioner had not responded to the Show Cause Notice dated 27.10.2020. It is hard to accept that there could be any meaningful response to the said Show Cause Notice. It sets out no reason at all for proposing to reject the petitioner's application for revocation of cancellation. 20. It is also noticed that the petitioner's principal contention was that it had already complied with the requirement of filing the returns on the date when the order cancelling its registration was passed and, therefore, the said order was unsustainable. 21. We are, prima facie, of the view that from the date of the petitioner filing an application for revocation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
