$~21

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

,,,,,,,,,,

+

W.P.(C) 661/2024 & CM APPLs. 2992/2024, 2993/2024

M S BRIDGEKALA LUXURIOUS

PRIVATE LIMITED

COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GOODS AND SERVICES TAX AND

ANOTHER

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner:

For the Respondent

CORAM:-

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1.

Petitioner impugns order dated

registration of the petitioner was cancelled

from 11.01.2020

08.11.2022.

2.

Vide Show Cause Notice dated

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

661/2024 & CM APPLs. 2992/2024, 2993/2024

M S BRIDGEKALA LUXURIOUS LIFESTYLE MANAGEMENT

PRIVATE LIMITED

versus

COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GOODS AND SERVICES TAX AND

..... Responden

Advocates who appeared in this case:

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate.

For the Respondents:

Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, ASC with Mr. Prateek and Ms.

Samridhi, Advocates.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

JUDGMENT

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:-

Page 1 of 4

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

Digitally Signed

By:VAISHALI PRUTHI

Signing Date:22.01.2024

14:24:32

Signature Not Verified

3.

Subsequently, the impugned order of cancellation dated

08.11.2022 cited

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

Subsequently, the impugned order of cancellation dated

cited the following reason:-

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

Page 2 of 4

Subsequently, the im