JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 09.02.2023 whereby GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled retrospectively with effect from 02.07.2017 and also impugns Show Cause Notice dated 31.01.2023. Further, Petitioner also impugns order dated 14.12.2023, whereby the Show Cause Notice dated 23.09.2023, proposing a demand of Rs.3,83,22,698.00 against the Petitioner has been disposed of and a demand including penalty has been raised against the Petitioner. The said order has been passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.

2. Petitioner is a partnership firm and is engaged in the business of manufacturing of plastic chairs, refining of gold, manufacturing and supply of Gold Bars and possessed GST registration.

3. Show Cause Notice dated 31.01.2023 was issued to the Petitioner seeking to cancel its registration for the following reason:-

“Non-compliance of any specified provisions in the GST Act or the Rules made thereunder as may be prescribed”

4. Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner on 31.01.2023. Though the notice does not specify any cogent reason, it merely states “Non-compliance of any specified provisions in the GST Act, or Rules made thereunder as may be prescribed”. 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.

5. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 09.02.2023 passed on the Show Cause Notice does not give any reasons for cancellation. It 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 09/02/2023 in response to the notice to show cause dated 31/01/2023” and the reason stated for cancellation is “Whereas no reply to notice to show cause has been submitted”. The order further states that the effective date of cancellation of registration is 02.07.2017 i.e., a retrospective date. There is no material on record to show as to why the registration is sought to be cancelled retrospectively.

6. In our view, impugned order dated 09.02.2023 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.

7. Pursuant to the order dated 09.02.2023, Petitioner submitted an application for condonation of delayed reply to order for cancellation of registration along with an application for revocation of order for cancellation of Registration.

8. The said applications were rejected vide order dated 14.03.2024 on the ground “Whereas M/s Sri Sai Vishwas Polymers vide Application Ref. no AA070123137644G dated 09/03/23 had applied for condonation of delay of revocation application of cancellation of registration on the ground that accountant of taxpayer was not available during this period. As per the field visit report the firm was not found functioning at the time of visit at the given address. Whereas the applicant failed to specify reasons for delay in clear manner making it difficult for adjudication the application. Whereas the applicant was issued show cause notice vide ref. no ZA0704231391310 dated 27/04/23, giving a period 7 days. Whereas in response to said show cause notice the taxpayer vide its reply dated 05/05/23 failed to explain the reasons of delay in condonation application. Further as per GSTI report dates 28/02/24, at the time of visit the register firm was found to be non-functional. As such it appears that there was no suitable reason for delay in filling of revocation application. Therefore the application of the taxpayer is hereby rejected.”.

9.