Allowed

Seema Jain v. Commissioner of GST & Anr.

Delhi HC10 Sept 2024W.P.(C)/12676/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect, the court held that the impugned order was arbitrary and silent on reasons for the retrospective cancellation. The court set aside the order and directed the restoration of the registration to allow the petitioner to file returns within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned order cancelling petitioner's GST registration; directed restoration of registration; allowed 30 days to file returns.

Seema Jain Vs Commissioner of GST & Anr. — Banking and Recovery | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~63

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 12676/2024

¶4

SEEMA JAIN .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Maneesh Jain, Mr. Prince Mohan Sinha, Mr. Sunjeev Batra and Mr. Aniket Krishatrey, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

COMMISSIONER OF GST & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, ASC along with Mr. Vivek Kr. Singh, Mr. Naved Ahmed and Mr. Shubham Kumar, Advs.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA O R D E R

¶9

% 10.09.2024

¶10

Issue notice.

¶11

Learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice.

¶12

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 01.05.2023 (hereafter the impugned order ), whereby the petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled with retrospective effect from 12.06.2018.

¶13

The petitioner was registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter the CGST Act )/ the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter the DGST Act ) with effect from 12.06.2018.

¶14

The petitioner claims that she was engaged in the business of trading of Paper, Paper Board, Polymers of ethylene, Trunks and various other products. She also claims that she has been regularly filing her returns with the GST department and had correctly availed of the input tax credit (ITC),

¶15

W.P.(C) 12676/2024

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 21:58:51

¶18

as reflected on her GST portal. The petitioner had filed the last returns for the month of September 2021, on 20.10.2021.

¶19

The petitioner contends that she was completely dependent on her accountant for filing of the returns as the registered e-mail and the phone number also belongs to her accountant.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that the petitioner was remiss in not filing her returns after September, 2021. 8. The petitioner had received a Show Cause Notice dated 04.05.2022 (hereafter the SCN ), proposing to cancel the petitioner’s GST registration for the reason that the petitioner had failed to furnish the returns for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner was called upon to respond to the SCN within a period of thirty days from the date of service of the said notice and also appear before the concerned proper officer on 03.06.2022 at 1100 hrs. Additionally, the petitioner’s GST registration was suspended from the date of issuance of the SCN.

¶21

The petitioner did not respond to the SCN. Consequently, the petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled by the impugned order. 10. The impugned order does not reflect any reason for cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration except referring to the SCN. 11. The impugned order also indicates that no tax or any other amount has been determined as due from the petitioner. 12. It is material to note that the SCN did not mention any proposal to cancel the petitioner’s GST registration with retrospective effect. The impugned order is also silent as to why the petitioner’s GST registration has been cancelled with effect from 12.06.2018 – the date with effect from which the petitioner was registered with the GST authorities.

W.P.(C) 12676/2024

Page 2 of 4

Section 29 (2) of the CGST Act/DGST Act enables the proper officer to cancel a taxpayer’s GST registration including with retrospective effect, if any of the conditions as set out in the said provision are satisfied. There is no doubt that the proper officer is empowered to cancel the taxpayer’s GST registration with retrospective effect. However, the said decision is required to be informed by reason. Such orders cannot be passed whimsically or arbitrarily.

¶26

In the present case, the impugned order does not reflect any reason as to why the petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled with effect from 12.06.2018. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

¶27

As is apparent from the above, the petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled as the petitioner did not file her returns for a continuous period of more than six months. However, this does not provide any reason to cancel the petitioner’s GST registration for the period during which the petitioner had filed her GST returns.

¶28

In view of the above, we consider it apposite to set aside the impugned order.

¶29

The respondents are directed to restore the petitioner’s GST registration forthwith. The petitioner may file GST returns within a period of 30 days, as provided under Rule 23 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 /Delhi Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

¶30

It is clarified that this order will not preclude the respondents from initiating any action for non-compliance of the statutory provisions or for recovery of any dues as may be payable by the petitioner.

¶31

This order will also not preclude the respondents from initiating fresh

W.P.(C) 12676/2024

Page 3 of 4

proceedings for cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration, including with retrospective effect, if the same is warranted, albeit , in accordance with law.

¶36

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶37

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶38

SACHIN DATTA, J

¶39

SEPTEMBER 10, 2024/ cl

¶40

W.P.(C) 12676/2024

¶41

Page 4 of 4

¶42

Seema Jain v. Commissioner of GST & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seema Jain v. Commissioner of GST & 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

Sangeeta Bakshi & Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Urmila Jaiswal Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation and Ors.

Air Force Naval Housing Board Vs Central Bank of India Branch Air Force Station & Ors.

Mmtc Pamp India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs the Local Committee South District & Ors.

Akhil Dilli Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Regd & Anr. Vs Govt.of N.C.T.Delhi & Ors.

Sanjay Yadav Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Msc Agency (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs UOI and Ors.

M/S Osm Projects Private Limited, through Its Director Surender Sharma & Anr. Vs Union of India through Chairman Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Cbic Departme

Sangeeta Bakshi & Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

M/S Kundan Trading Company Vs Pr. Commissioner of Department of Trade and Taxes, Government of NCT of Delhi

Rebanta Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dr Reddys Laboratories Ltd. & Anr.

D K Frieght Carrier Proprietor Deepak Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Jitendra Mishra (Erstwhile Partner of M/S. Psrj Jewellers) & Anr. Vs Sales Tax Officer Class Ii/Avato, Ward 46, Zone 3, Delhi & Anr.

Infiniti Retail Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.