9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts which appear on the writ petition, it would emerge that the petitioner was originally registered on 17 December 2014 in the category of a wholesaler/ distributor of mobile phones. The said registration under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 thereafter migrated under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [CGST] and in terms whereof a registration certificate under the said statute came to be issued on 01 July 2017. The petitioner is stated to have shifted its principal place of business and applied for requisite amendments being made in the registration certificate. That amendment was carried out and an amended registration certificate issued on 02 July 2019. 4. On the record is also a panchnama drawn by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence [DGGI], pertaining to a search which was undertaken on the business premises of the petitioner. The location of the business premises which was subjected to search corresponds with the particulars which appear in the amended registration certificate. 5. However, the respondents proceeded to issue a Show Cause Notice [SCN] on 13 June 2022 alleging that the registration was liable to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eby directed to appear before the undersigned on 27/01/2023 at 12:30 If you fail to furnish a reply within the stipulated date or fail to appear for personal hearing on the appointed date and time, the case will be decided ex-parte on the basis of available records and on merits." 8. The aforesaid SCN was thereafter followed by a final order dated 20 February 2024 in terms of which the application of the petitioner for revocation came to be rejected. 9. As is manifest from the aforesaid communications which were issued by the State GST authorities, the original SCN had proceeded on the allegation that the registration had been obtained by means of fraud and was thus liable to be cancelled. However, that notice failed to advert to or found itself upon any cogent material on the basis of which the respondents came to form the opinion that the registration itself had been obtained by practice of fraud or by the making of a willful misstatement or suppression of facts. 10. More importantly, the Court notes that the said SCN had failed to allude to the amended registration certificate which had come to be obtained by the petitioner in the meanwhile and had been issued on 02 July 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... January-2023, which was rejected by the department after the period of one year. The appellant further stated that their registration was cancelled in December-2022, thus, they have to vacate the premises due to discontinuation of business. From the records placed before me, wherein I note that the appellant itself stated that they are not existent at the registered principal place of business. However, the appellant filed an application for revocation of cancellation on 19.01.2023 and wants to continue its business activities at the registered principal place of business. However, on the other side, the appellant has failed to submit necessary documentary evidence such as self-attested copy of Aadhar Card, PAN card of the owner of the premises, geo-tagged photo of premises, relevant rent-agreement and electricity bill of the relevant period along with the NOC from the owner of the premises etc., before the appellate authority, in order to substantiate their existence at the registered premises. Furthermore, on perusal of SCN dated 13.06.2022, wherein it was alleged that the registration has been obtained by the appellant is by means of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in our decision in Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax (CGST), South Delhi & Anr W.P.C 8061/2024 dated 25 September 2024, and where we had held as follows:- "5. As is manifest from a reading of Section 29, clauses (a) to (e) of Section 29 (2) constitute independent limbs on the basis of which a registration may warrant cancellation. While the provision does enable the respondents to cancel that registration with retrospective effect, the mere existence or conferral of that power would not justify a revocation of registration. The order under Section 29 (2) must itself reflect the reasons which may have weighed upon the respondents to cancel registration with retrospective effect. Given the deleterious consequences which would ensue and accompany a retroactive cancellation makes it all the more vital that the order be reasoned and demonstrative of due application of mind. It is also necessary to observe that the mere existence of such a power would not in itself be sufficient to sustain its invocation. What we seek to emphasise is that the power to cancel retrospectively can neither be robotic nor routinely applied unless circumstances so warrant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner has to appear. 5. Further the order dated 13.07.2022 passed on the show cause notice does not give any reasons for cancellation of the registration. It, however, states that the registration is liable to be cancelled for the following reason "whereas no reply to notice to show cause has been submitted''. However, the said order in itself is contradictory, the order states "reference to your reply dated 16.04.2022 in response to the notice to show cause dated 07.04.2022" and the reason stated for cancellation is "whereas no reply to notice to show cause has been submitted''. The order further states that effective date of cancellation of registration is 01.07.2017 i.e. retrospective date. 6. Neither the show cause notice, nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation. In fact, in our view, order dated 13.07.2022 does not qualify as an order of cancellation of registration. 7. As per the petitioner, the said order reflected that the GST of the Petitioner stands cancelled from 01.07.2017 even though returns thereafter have been filed by the Petitioner. 8. We notice that the show cause notice as well as the impugned order of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suspended, there shall be no liability to pay any penalty or fine for delayed filing. However, this would only apply in case petitioner files an affidavit of undertaking that petitioner has not carried out any business or raised invoices or taken any Input Tax Credit after the registration was suspended with effect from 07.04.2022 i.e., the date of suspension of the registration. 14. Respondent would be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law after giving a proper show cause notice containing complete details, if so advised. Further this order would not preclude the respondent from initiating any steps in accordance with law, if it is found that the petitioner had violated any provisions of the Act. 15. Petition is disposed of in the above terms." 7. We further take note of the judgment in Delhi Polymers vs Commissioner, Trade and Taxes & Anr. wherein the following was observed:- "1. Petitioner has filed the appeal impugning order of cancellation of registration dated 15.12.2021 whereby the GST registration of the Petitioner has been cancelled retrospectively with effect from 01.07.2017. Petitioner also impugns Show Cause Notice dated 04.09.202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e proper officer may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit if the circumstances set out in the said sub-section are satisfied. Registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically. It can be cancelled only if the proper officer deems it fit to do so. Such satisfaction cannot be subjective but must be based on some objective criteria. Merely, because a taxpayer has not filed the returns for some period does not mean that the taxpayer's registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when the returns were filed and the taxpayer was compliant. 10. It is important to note that, according to the respondent, one of the consequences for cancelling a tax payer's registration with retrospective effect is that the taxpayer's customers are denied the input tax credit availed in respect of the supplies made by the tax payer during such period. Although, we do not consider it apposite to examine this aspect but assuming that the respondent's contention in required to consider this aspect while passing any order for cancellation of GST registration with retrospecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
