JUDGEMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL) Petitioner impugns order dated 27.02.2023, whereby the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled retrospectively 11.01.2020 and also impugns Show Cause Notice dated Vide Show Cause Notice dated 08.11.2022, petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the registration be not cancelled for the following reasons:-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 18.01.2024 661/2024 & CM APPLs. 2992/2024, 2993/2024 LIFESTYLE MANAGEMENT ..... Petitioner COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GOODS AND SERVICES TAX AND ..... Respondents Rajeev Aggarwal, ASC with Mr. Prateek and Ms.

, whereby the GST retrospectively with effect Show Cause Notice dated , petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the registration be not cancelled “returns furnished by you under section 39 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

3.Subsequently, the impugned order of cancellation dated 08.11.2022 cited “Failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner could not file the returns on He submits that petitioner is aggrieved by the retrospective cancellation of registration with effect from 11.01.2020. He submits that registration sh 08.11.2022 i.e. the registration was suspended.

5.He submits that petitioner

6.We may note that though the Show Cause Notice states that petitioner failed to Services Tax Act, 2017.

7.The impugned order seeks to cancel the registration with effect from 11.01.2020 registration is sought to

8.Further, the 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 returns furnished by you under section 39 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017” Subsequently, the impugned order of cancellation dated cited the following reason:-<br/>

Failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner could not file the returns on account of lapse on the part of the accountant.

He submits that petitioner is aggrieved by the retrospective cancellation of registration with effect from 11.01.2020. He submits that registration should have been cancelled from the date of the date when the show cause notice was issued and the registration was suspended.

He submits that petitioner would apply for fresh registration.

We may note that though the Show Cause Notice states that failed to file returns under Section 39 of the Go Services Tax Act, 2017.

The impugned order seeks to cancel the registration with effect 11.01.2020. There is no material on record to show as to why the registration is sought to be cancelled retrospectively.

he 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 returns furnished by you under section 39 of the Central Goods Subsequently, the impugned order of cancellation dated Failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner could account of lapse on the part of the accountant.

He submits that petitioner is aggrieved by the retrospective cancellation of registration with effect from 11.01.2020. He submits have been cancelled from the date of the date when the show cause notice was issued and apply for fresh registration.

We may note that though the Show Cause Notice states that of the Goods and The impugned order seeks to cancel the registration with effect . There is no material on record to show as to why the he 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.

9.In terms of Secti