9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. 107 of the SGST. 4. Learned counsel for rival parties are heard on the question of admission so also final disposal. 5 The principal contention of learned counsel for petitioner-assessee is two fold. The first being that the impugned show cause notice dated 28.01.2022 (Annexure P/2) is vague for not supplying the relevant reasons and material while proposing cancellation of registration. The second being denial of reasonable opportunity of defending himself and replying to the show cause notice thereby breaching the rule of natural justice (audi alteram partem). 6. On the basis of aforesaid short submission, learned counsel for petitioner relying upon decision of Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, (1978) 1 SCC 405; decision of Indore Bench of this Court in Health Care Medical Devices Pvt. Ltd. Vs. MP Public Health Services Corpn. Ltd. and another, 2021 SCC OnLine MP 3389; decision of Delhi High Court in Balaji Enterprises Vs. Principal Additional Director General, Directorate General of GST Intelligence and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3201; and decision of Gujarat High Court in Vageesh Umesh Jaiswal V. Sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollowing reasons were assigned for the proposed rejection of application for revocation: "Any Supporting Document - Others (please specify) - Your reply not satisfactory. Adhaar not verified also." By furnishing the aforesaid reason, reply was sought from the petitioner within seven days. 8.3 It appears from perusal of show cause notice (Annexure P/5) dated 24.02.2022 that the reply dated 11.02.2022 (Annexure P/3) filed by the petitioner pursuant to first show cause notice dated 28.01.2022 (Annexure P/2) was treated as an application for revocation of cancellation of registration u/s. 30. 8.4 Thereafter, the order was passed on 30.03.2022 rejecting the said application by treating the same as an application for revocation of cancellation of registration by giving following reasons: "1. Any Supporting Document - Others (Please specify) - Your reply not satisfactory. Adhaar not verified also. 2. Firm registration canceled on the basis of physical verification report which is attached. Please see that physical report. If you are not agree with proper officer decision you have opportunity to file appeal against proper officer." 8.5 Pertinently, the application for revocation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iting; (c) in case no material is supplied or insufficient reasons are given in the show cause notice and the assessee seeks proper reasons and material, then the Revenue is obliged to extend the time for filing reply by furnishing proper reasons and supporting material; (d) Revenue should also take into account certain circumstances, which may be beyond the control of assessee where extension of time ought to be given considering the seriousness and urgency of reasons assigned for extension; (e) the minimum period after service of a valid or proper show cause notice, for submission of reply by the assessee is prescribed as seven days, which is extendable on the discretion of the Proper Officer for justified reasons to be recorded in writing; (f) in case assessee within seven days or the extended time fails to file any response in writing, then the Proper Officer is free to pass appropriate order; and (g) in case, assessee submits reply in writing, then the same is to be considered by passing an appropriate speaking order by the competent authority u/s. 30 containing sufficient reasons to enable the assessee to avail the remedy of appeal u/s. 107. 10.1 Similar affording ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order would show, that the petitioner's registration was cancelled on account of an enquiry pending against the petitioner, which evidently is being carried out by DGGI, Chennai concerning supply of "spurious goods." 13. Furthermore, it is also indicated, as is evident on a plain reading of the impugned order, that the premises of the petitioner were physically verified by the Range Inspector, after receiving approval from the competent authority, and that it was found that the premises had been sealed by DGGI, Chennai. 14. Interestingly, the impugned order reveals, that nothing was due from the petitioner on account of tax, interest, penalty or cess. 15. Clearly, the SCN did not advert to the facets, which were referred to in the impugned order, whereby the petitioner's registration has been cancelled. 16. Although, as per the impugned order, the Range Inspector appears to have physically verified the petitioner's premises, neither was any notice given of the physical verification, nor is the report which was generated after the verification, uploaded on the portal. 17. This was required to be done, as provided in Rule 25 of the CGST Rules. 18. We have sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
