Allowed

Subhana Fashion v. Commissioner Delhi Goods and Service Tax

Delhi HC19 Sept 2024W.P.(C)/12255/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi allowed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration. The court held that non-payment of dues for three months is not a prescribed ground for cancellation under the CGST Act or CGST Rules and set aside the impugned order due to violations of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned order cancelling GST registration and direct respondents to restore petitioner's GST registration forthwith.

Subhana Fashion Vs Commissioner Delhi Goods and Service Tax — Banking and Recovery | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~98

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 19.09.2024

¶4

- W.P.(C) 12255/2024 and CM APPL. 50939/2024 (Stay) SUBHANA FASHION .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pulkit Verma, Mr. Upender Sah and Mr. Peyush Pruthi, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

COMMISSIONER DELHI GOODS AND SERVICE TAX

¶7

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, ASC and Mr. Shubham Goel, Adv.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

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

¶10

VIBHU BAKHRU, J. ( ORAL )

¶11

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 02.06.2022 (hereafter the impugned order ) whereby the petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017. The impugned order was issued pursuant to a Show Cause Notice dated 03.09.2021 (hereafter the SCN ), whereby the petitioner was called upon to show cause why its GST registration not be cancelled. The only reason set out in the SCN for proposing to cancel the petitioner’s GST registration reads as under:

¶12

“Fails to pay any amount of tax, interest or penalty to the account of the Central/State Government beyond a period of three months from the date on which such payment becomes due.”

¶13

The petitioner was called upon to furnish a reply to the SCN within a

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

Page 1 of 5

¶16

W.P.(C) 12255/2024

¶17

Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWA L

¶18

period of seven days from the date of service of the SCN. The petitioner was also put to notice that if he failed to furnish a reply or appear for a personal hearing on the appointed date and time, the case would be decided ex parte on the basis of available records on merits. However, the SCN did not mention any appointed date or time fixed for personal hearing. Additionally, the petitioner’s GST registration was suspended with effect from the date of the SCN – that is with effect from 03.09.2021.

¶19

The petitioner’s GST registration was subsequently cancelled by the impugned order.

¶20

The impugned order does not reflect any reason for cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration. However, it refers to the SCN dated 03.09.2021.

¶21

The only question that requires to be considered is whether cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration is warranted for the reason as set out in the SCN.

¶22

As noted above, the only reason set out in the said SCN for proposing to cancel the petitioner’s GST registration is failure to pay tax, interest or penalty within a period of three months from the date on which the said amount became due.

¶23

However, that is not one of the reasons available under Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter the CGST Act ) for cancellation of a tax payer’s GST registration.

¶24

Section 29 (1) and (2) of the CGST Act are relevant and are set out below:

¶25

“ 29. Cancellation [or suspension] of registration,- (1) The proper officer may, either on his own motion or on an application

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Page 2 of 5

¶28

W.P.(C) 12255/2024

¶29

Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWA L

¶30

filed by the registered person or by his legal heirs, in case of death of such person, cancel the registration, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed, having regard to the circumstances where,-

¶31

(a) the business has been discontinued, transferred fully for any reason including death of the proprietor, amalgamated with other legal entity, demerged or otherwise disposed of; or

¶32

(b) there is any change in the constitution of the business; or (c) the taxable person, is no longer liable to be registered under section 22 or section 24 or intends to optout of the registration voluntarily made under sub-section (3) of section 25:

¶33

[Provided that during pendency of the proceedings relating to cancellation of registration filed by the registered person, the registration may be suspended for such period and in such manner as may be prescribed.]

¶34

(2) The proper officer may cancel the registration of a person from such date, including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit, where,-

¶35

(a) a registered person has contravened such provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder as may be prescribed; or

¶36

(b) a person paying tax under section 10 has not furnished [the return for a financial year beyond three months from the due date of furnishing the said return]; or

¶37

(c) any registered person, other than a person specified in clause (b), has not furnished returns for [such continuous tax period as may prescribed]; or

¶38

(d) any person who has taken voluntary registration under sub-section (3) of section 25 has not commenced business within six months from the date of registration; or

¶39

(e) registration has been obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.”

¶40

It is also relevant to refer to Rule 21 of the Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017 ( CGST Rules ), which sets out the grounds on which

¶41

Signature Not Verified

¶42

Page 3 of 5

¶43

W.P.(C) 12255/2024

¶44

Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWA L

¶45

the registration granted to a tax payer may be cancelled. The said Rule is set out below:

¶46

“ 21. Registration to be cancelled in certain cases.- The registration granted to a person is liable to be cancelled, if the said person,-

¶47

(a) does not conduct any business from the declared place of business; or

¶48

(b) issues invoice or bill without supply of goods or services [or both] in violation of the provisions of the Act, or the rules made thereunder; or

¶49

¶50

(d) violates the provision of rule 10A

¶51

(e) avails input tax credit in violation of the provisions of section 16 of the Act or the rules made thereunder; or

¶52

(f) furnishes the details of outward supplies in FORM GSTR-1 under section 37 for one or more tax periods which is in excess of the outward supplies declared by him in his valid return under section 39 for the said tax periods; or

¶53

(g) violates the provision of rule 86B.

¶54

(h) being a registered person required to file return under proviso to sub-section (1) of section 39 for each month or part thereof, has not furnished returns for a continuous period of six months;

¶55

(i) being a registered person required to file return under proviso to sub-section (1) of section 39 for each quarter or part thereof, has not furnished returns for a continuous period of two tax periods.”

¶56

It is apparent to note that non-payment of dues for a period of three months is not a prescribed ground for cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration.

¶57

It is also important to note that the impugned order sets out a tabular statement, which indicates that no amount has been determined as payable by the petitioner. The Central Tax, State Tax, Integrated Tax and Cess

¶58

Signature Not Verified

¶59

Page 4 of 5

¶60

W.P.(C) 12255/2024

¶61

Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWA L

¶62

payable by the petitioner is reflected as, “ 0.0 ”.

¶63

Apart from the above, the impugned order has also been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Although the SCN called upon the petitioner to appear for a personal hearing at the appointed date and time, no such date or time was indicated. Thus, in effect the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to be heard.

¶64

In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order. The respondents are directed to restore the petitioner’s GST registration forthwith.

¶65

We, however, clarify this would not preclude the respondents from initiating any proceedings for recovery of dues or for any statutory noncompliances albeit in accordance with law.

¶66

The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶67

Pending application is also stands disposed of.

¶68

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶69

SACHIN DATTA, J

¶70

SEPTEMBER 19, 2024/ cl

¶71

Signature Not Verified

¶72

Page 5 of 5

¶73

W.P.(C) 12255/2024

¶74

Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWA L

Subhana Fashion v. Commissioner Delhi Goods and Service Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhana Fashion v. Commissioner Delhi Goods and Service Tax

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

Rakesh Kumar & Anr. Vs Harbans Gandhi & Ors.

Vikas Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi through Transport Commissioner

Rajender Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Rani Sharma Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Yogesh Paliwal Vs the Union of India & Ors.

Prashant Softwares Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

Mohd. Shahzad Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

Aruna Tiku Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

R L Enterprises Vs Commissioner State Goods and Services Tax Delhi & Anr.

Arg Outlier Media Private Limited (Earlier Known as Arg Outlier Media Asianet News Pvt. Ltd) Vs Ht Media Limited

Esskcon Vs the Principal Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax & Anr.

M/S Hrc International. through Its Prop. Sh. Sunil Kumar Treepathi Vs Union of India and Ors.

Heera Lal Prop Utkarsh Traders Vs Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Anr.

Kunal Autotech Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.