Back
B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
Vijayakumar Thimasandra Mahadevappa – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of GST – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the second respondent's order dated 20.04.2022 [Annexure-A] and the Order-in-appeal dated 14.12.2022 [Annexure F]. The second respondent by the order dated 20.04.2022 has cancelled the petitioner's GST registration and the first respondent, the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short the 'CGST Act'] by the next impugned order dated 14.12.2022, has dismissed the petitioner's appeal under Section 107 (1) and 107(4) of the CGST Act on the ground of delay.
2. Sri. Mahesh Arkalgud, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court must interfere with the impugned order dated 20.04.2022 even if the petitioner's appeal as against such order is dismissed on the ground that it is belated because of two reasons. He argues that the second respondent, for cancellation of the GST registration, has recorded his opinion that the petitioner's registration must be cancelled, and his opinion is ostensibly on examination of the petitioner's reply and the submissions at the time of hearing. Irrefutably, the petitioner has neither filed response nor participated in any personal hearing. Thi
The importance of providing detailed reasons for cancellation of registration and the need for compliance with the principles of natural justice.
Orders lacking reasoning do not meet constitutional scrutiny under Article 14, allowing for judicial review and the right to respond to show cause notices.
The serious illness of a Managing Director can justify delays in responding to regulatory notices, warranting restoration of GST registration.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
