$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 03.07.2024 + W.P.(C) 8904/2024, CM No.36335/2024 & CM No.36336/2024 SATYAM ENTERPRISES PROP. HITESH CHUGH HUF THROUGH KARTA MR. HITESH CHUGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar & Mr. Parveen Kumar Gambhir, Advs.

Versus COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GOODS AND SERVICES TAX AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal & Mr. Shubham Goel, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that the Show Cause Notice dated 17.08.2020 (hereafter the impugned SCN) and the order dated 27.08.2020 (hereafter the impugned order) passed pursuant to the impugned SCN be set aside.

2. The respondent authorities had issued the impugned SCN calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the petitioner’s GST Registration (GSTIN: 07AADHH0053H1ZP) should not be cancelled. The reason set out in the impugned SCN reads as: “Any Taxpayer other than composition taxpayer has not filed returns for a continuous period of six months.” The petitioner was called upon to file its response to the impugned SCN within a period of seven working days from the date of the service of the notice.

3. Concededly, the petitioner did not respond to the impugned SCN. Resultantly, the proper officer passed the impugned order cancelling the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 8904/2024 Page 1 of 5 petitioner’s GST registration for the sole reason that the petitioner has not responded to the impugned SCN.

4. The petitioner is not aggrieved by the cancellation of its GST registration. It is essentially aggrieved by the cancellation of its GST registration with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017. It is also material to note that the impugned order has set out a tabular statement, which indicates that no tax or cess was determined to be paid by the petitioner.

5. There is no dispute that the petitioner had not filed its returns for a continuous period of six months. Concededly, the petitioner had filed its return till December, 2019 but not thereafter. The petitioner claims that it had not done so as it had stopped carrying on its business. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submits that there were certain disputes between the family members and therefore the petitioner could not take any steps for making the necessary application immediately after stopping the business.

6. Since the reasons for which the petitioner’s GST registration is cancelled viz. non filing of returns for a period of six months, is not disputed, the decision to cancel the petitioner’s registration cannot be faulted. As noted above, the petitioner is also not assailing the said decision.

7. In terms of Section 29(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter the CGST Act), the proper officer is empowered to cancel the registration on his own motion or on an application filed by the registered person or his legal heirs in case of death. In terms of Section 29(2) of the CGST Act, the proper officer is also empowered to cancel the registration of a person from such date as he may deem fit including from a retrospective date. Section

29(2) of the CGST Act is set out below:

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 8904/2024 Page 2 of 5 “(2) The proper officer may cancel the registration of a person from such date, including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit, where,––

(a) a registered person has contravened such provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder as may be prescribed; or (b) a person paying tax under section 10 has not furnished returns for three consecutive tax periods; or (c) any registered person, other than a person specified in clause (b), has not furnished returns for a continuous period of six months; or (d) any person who has taken voluntary registration under sub- section (3) of section 25 has not commenced business within six months from the da