$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 03.09.2024 + W.P.(C) 11739/2024 & CM APPL. 48831/2024 SALUJA OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.

.....Petitioner Through: Mr Anshuj Dhingra, Ms Shubhangda Singh and Ms Muskan Banga, Advocates.

versus COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE DELHI EAST COMMISSIONERATE .....Respondent Through: Mr Gibran Naushad, SSC. Mr.Rajeev Aggarwal, ASC and Mr.Shubham Goel, Advocate.

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, impugning an order dated 08.10.2021 (hereafter the impugned order), whereby the petitioner’s Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration was cancelled with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017.

2. The impugned order was passed pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 26.08.2021 (hereafter the impugned SCN), whereby the petitioner was called upon to show cause why its GST registration not be cancelled. The Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P. (C) 11739/2024 Page 1 of 5 By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Signing Date:06.09.2024 only reason set out in the impugned SCN for proposing the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration reads as under: -

“1 Collects any amount as representing the tax but fails to pay the same to the account of the Central/ State Government beyond a period of three months from the date on which such payment becomes due.”

3. The petitioner was called upon to furnish its reply to the impugned SCN within a period of seven working days form the date of the service of the impugned SCN and to appear before the proper office on the appointed date and time. The petitioner’s GST registration was also suspended with effect from the date of the impugned SCN, that is, with effect from

26.08.2021.

4. It is material to note that the impugned SCN did not mention any proposal to cancel the petitioner’s GST registration with retrospective effect from the date when it was granted. Although, the impugned SCN directed the petitioner to appear before the concerned officer on the appointed date and time, but no such time or date was indicated in the impugned SCN.

5. It is also material to note that the impugned SCN did not specify any particulars as to the allegations that the petitioner had collected the tax and had failed to deposit the same in the account of the Central / State Government beyond the period of three months. The impugned SCN did not mention any particulars as to the amount of tax collected or the transaction in respect of which the allegation is made.

6. We are, thus, of the view that the impugned order cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. First, the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing as no date or time was fixed for such hearing. Second, the impugned SCN did not propose retrospective cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration. And third, the impugned SCN did not contain any specific particulars as to the alleged collection and non-deposit of the tax or the transaction on which such allegation was premised. Plainly, the impugned SCN is vague and cryptic.

7. In view of the above, the impugned SCN and the impugned order are set aside.

8. The petitioner also prayed that directions be issued to the adjudicating officer to re-adjudicate / reassess the petitioner’s liability for the financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19.

9. The petitioner is, essentially, aggrieved by the order dated 26.12.2023 in respect of the tax period from July, 2017 to March, 2018, and the order dated 30.04.2024 in respect of the tax period from April, 2018 to March, 2019 passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/ the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter the CGST Act/ DGST Act). It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the said orders have been passed on account of denial of the Input Tax Credit (hereafter the ITC) on supplies availed by the petitione