SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Del) 375

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, Ravinder Dudeja, JJ.
M/s. Anju Industry - Appellant
Versus
Special Commissioner-1, Department of Trade And Taxes - Respondent
W.P.(C) 2985 of 2024, CM APPL. 12246 of 2024 & CM APPL. 12247 of 2024
Decided On : 28-02-2024

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Dinesh Kothari and Mr. B.S. Randhawa, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, Additional Standing Counsel, for the Respondents.

IMPORTANT POINT
Cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect requires objective criteria and consideration of consequences, not solely based on the failure to file returns.

Headnote:

GST Registration - Retrospective Cancellation - Objective Criteria for Cancellation

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed an appeal against the retrospective cancellation of their GST registration. The show cause notice lacked specific reasons and the impugned order was contradictory.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the show cause notice and the impugned order did not provide sufficient reasons for the retrospective cancellation of the registration. The court modified the impugned order to cancel the registration from the date of the show cause notice.

Issues: Lack of specific reasons for retrospective cancellation, contradictory impugned order

Ratio Decidendi: Cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect requires objective criteria and cannot be based solely on the failure to file returns. The registration can only be cancelled with retrospective effect if warranted by the consequences and intended purpose.

Final Decision: The impugned order was modified to cancel the registration from the date of the show cause notice. The petitioner was directed to comply with the requirements of Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The respondents were not precluded from taking steps for recovery of any tax, penalty, or interest in accordance with the law, including retrospective cancellation of the GST registration.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral) - Petitioner impugns order in appeal dated 13.02.2024, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed solely on the ground of limitation. Petitioner had filed the appeal impugning order dated 18.08.2022, whereby the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled retrospectively with effect from 01.07.2017.Petitioner also impugns Show Cause Notice dated 03.02.2022

2. Vide Show Cause Notice dated 03.02.2022, petitioner was called upon to show as to why the registration be not cancelled for the following reason:

    "Returns furnished by you under section 39 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017"

3. Petitioner was engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of Machine Screws and LED Lights and possessed GST registration.

4. Show Cause Notice dated 03.02.2022 was issued to the petitioner. The notice does not specify any cogent reason, there is an observation in the notice stating "failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months". The said Show Cause Notice required the petitioner to appear before the undersigned i.e., authority issuing the notice. Notice does not give the name of the officer or place where the petitioner has to appear. Further, the digital signature in the show cause notice merely mention "digitally signed by DS GOODS AND SERVICES TAX NETWORK 07".

5. Further the said Show Cause Notice also does not put the petitioner to notice that the registration is liable to be cancelled retrospectively. Accordingly, the petitioner had no opportunity to even object to the retrospective cancellation of the registration.

6. Further, the impugned order dated 18.08.2022 passed on the Show Cause Notice dated 03.02.2023 does not give any reasons for cancellation. It, however, states that the registration is liable to be cancelled for the following reason "whereas no reply to the show cause notice has been submitted". However, the said order in itself is contradictory. The order states "reference to your reply dated 05.03.2022 in response to the notice to show cause dated 02.02.2022" and the reason stated for the cancellation is "whereas no reply to notice show cause has been submitted". The order further states that effective date of cancellation of registration is 01.07.2017 i.e., a retrospective date.

7. In fact, in our view, order dated 18.08.2022 does not qualify as an order of cancellation of registration. On one hand, it states that the registration is liable to be cancelled and on the other, in the column at the bottom there are no dues stated to be due against the petitioner and the table shows nil demand.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is no longer interested in continuing the business and has closed down his business activities

9. We notice that the Show Cause Notice and the impugned order are also bereft of any details accordingly the same cannot be sustained and neither the show cause notice, nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation.

10. In terms of Section 29(2) of the Act, the 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.

11. 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 suppl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top