Allowed

Ravi v. Avato Ward 84 State Goods and Services Tax and Anr.

Delhi HC22 Aug 2024W.P.(C)/11562/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order cancelling his GST registration. The High Court held the Show Cause Notice was cryptic, lacked details of alleged fraud, did not specify hearing time, and violated natural justice. Quashed impugned order, restored registration, but allowed fresh proceedings. Petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; petitioner's GST registration restored forthwith.

Ravi Vs Avato Ward 84 State Goods and Services Tax and Anr. — GST and Indirect Tax | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~76

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision : 22.08.2024

¶4

- W.P.(C) 11562/2024 & CM APPL. 48012/2024

¶5

RAVI .....Petitioner Through: Mr Anurag Rajput, Mr Sahib Rajput, Mr Sahil Puri, Mr Sukhjeet Puri, and Mr Dhruv Bhardwaj Advocates. versus AVATO WARD 84 STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr Karan Bhardwaj, ASC and Mr Shubham Singh, Mr Rajat Gaba and Mr.Sourabh Dahiya, Advocates.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

¶8

VIBHU BAKHRU, J. ( ORAL )

¶9

Issue notice.

¶10

The learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice.

¶11

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 14.02.2024 (hereafter the impugned order ) whereby the petitioner’s Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration was cancelled with retrospective effect from 16.12.2022.

¶12

It is also material to note that the petitioner was issued a Show Cause Notice dated 05.04.2023 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why

¶13

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Signing Da te:2 7.08.2024 12:44:36

¶14

W.P. (C) 11562/2024 Page 1 of 4

¶15

his GST registration not be cancelled. It was alleged that the petitioner was found to be non-functioning / non-existing at the principal place of business. The petitioner had responded on 11.04.2023 to the said Show Cause Notice dated 05.04.2023 and had stated that his shop was closed for a week on account of certain events in his family. He also invited the concerned officer to conduct a fresh physical verification and revoke the order cancelling his GST registration.

¶16

It is stated that the concerned officer had visited the premises of the petitioner on 10.04.2023 and had uploaded the photographs on the GST portal. Based on the same, proceedings for cancelling the petitioner’s GST were dropped by an order dated 12.04.2023. The suspension of the petitioner’s GST registration was also revoked. However, a few months later, once again, proceedings were begun to cancel the petitioner’s GST registration by issuance of a Show Cause Notice dated 31.07.2023 (hereafter the impugned SCN ).

¶17

The impugned order was passed pursuant to the impugned SCN, whereby the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why his GST registration not be cancelled. The only reason set out in the impugned SCN reads as under:-

¶18

“1. Section 29(2)(e)-registration obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts”

¶19

The petitioner was called upon to furnish a reply to the impugned SCN within seven working days from the date of service of the impugned SCN and also to appear before the concerned officer for a personal hearing

¶20

W.P. (C) 11562/2024 Page 2 of 4

¶21

on the appointed date and time. Additionally, the petitioner’s GST registration was suspended with effect from the date of the impugned SCN – 31.07.2023.

¶22

It is material to note that although the petitioner was directed to appear for a personal hearing on the appointed date and time, no such date or time was indicated in the impugned SCN.

¶23

It is apparent from the above, the impugned SCN is cryptic and does not set out any details for proposing to cancel the petitioner’s GST registration. It merely reproduces the statutory provision which enables the proper officer to cancel a tax payer’s GST registration if it is obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. The impugned SCN does not mention either the particulars or the nature of the alleged fraud. It does not mention any statement which is alleged to be a wilful misstatement or the facts which were allegedly supressed by the petitioner.

¶24

It is also relevant to note that the impugned SCN does not propose the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration with retrospective effect.

¶25

As noted above, the impugned SCN also did not mention the date and time fixed for the personal hearing.

¶26

It is clear that the impugned SCN fails to meet the standards required of a show cause notice. The purpose of issuance of a show cause notice is to enable the noticee to respond to the allegations on the basis of which an adverse action is proposed. It is a fundamental rule of natural justice that a person must be afforded an opportunity to meet the allegations made against

¶27

W.P. (C) 11562/2024 Page 3 of 4

¶28

him. In the present case, the petitioner has been denied of that opportunity.

¶29

In view of the above, the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The same is also unreasoned. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside.

¶30

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to restore the petitioner’s GST registration forthwith. However, it is clarified that this order will not preclude the respondents from initiating any fresh proceedings for any statutory violation or for recovery of any dues. The respondents are also not precluded from initiating any proceedings for cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration, if warranted, albeit, in accordance with law.

¶31

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application also stands disposed of.

¶32

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶33

SACHIN DATTA, J

¶34

AUGUST 22, 2024 M

¶35

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶36

W.P. (C) 11562/2024 Page 4 of 4

Ravi v. Avato Ward 84 State Goods and Services Tax and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi v. Avato Ward 84 State Goods and Services Tax and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Mj Bizcrafts LLP (through Its Partner Sh. Rajender Kumar) Vs Central Goods and Services Tax, Delhi South Commissionerate (through Its Commissioner) & Ors.

Rajesh Adhikari and Ors. Vs Sashastra Seema Bal and Anr.

Kunal Khatumaria Vs State (Gnct of Delhi) and Ors.

Shri Nath Kushwaha & Ors. Vs Braham Swaroop Sharma & Ors.

Prayag Polytech Private Limited & Anr. Vs Canara Bank

Central Government Welfare Housing Organization Cgewho Vs Inder Jit Singh Ahuja

Mohd. Rashid Vs Union of India & Anr.

Anil Kumar Sinha and Ors. Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation

M/S Mj Bizcrafts LLP (through Its Partner Sh. Rajender Kumar) Vs Central Goods and Services Tax, Delhi South Commissionerate (through Its Commissioner) & Ors.

Container Corporation of India Limited Vs M/S Shivalaya Construction Company Private Limited & Anr.

Suresh Chand Gupta Proprietor of Gupta and Associates Vs Union of India and Ors.

Green Light Food Pvt. Ltd. Vs Preetendra Singh Aulakh

Gulf Haj and Umrah Service Vs Additional Commissioner Adjudication

Shree Shyam Polychem through Its Proprietor Aman Garg HUF Vs Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Another