Partly allowed

Goyal Metal Industries , Proprietor Jai Prakash Gupta v. Principal Commissiner of Gst, Department of Trade and Taxes, New Delhi

Delhi HC13 Mar 2024W.P.(C)/3632/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenged retrospective cancellation of GST registration and demand arising from non-reply to notice after such cancellation. Court set aside order passed without reply due to portal access denial and directed deemed cancellation date as applied for date, directing service of notice with hearing opportunity, reserving merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; registration deemed cancelled from application date; show cause notice to be served with hearing opportunity.

Goyal Metal Industries , Proprietor Jai Prakash Gupta Vs… — GST and Indirect Tax | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~42

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of decision: 13.03.2024 + W.P.(C) 3632/2024 & CM APPLs. 15002-03/2024

¶4

GOYAL METAL INDUSTRIES, PROPRIETOR VIKRAM SINGH JAI PRAKASH GUPTA ..... Petitioner

¶5

versus

¶6

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF GST, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND TAXES, NEW DELHI ..... Respondent

¶7

Advocates who appeared in this case:

¶8

For the Petitioner: Mr. V.S. Negi with Ms. Sangeeta Rana, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, ASC with Ms. Samridhi Vats, Advocate.

¶9

CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶10

JUDGMENT

¶11

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

Petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 28.07.2018 whereby the GST registration has been cancelled retrospectively from 01.07.2017. Petitioner also impugns order dated 11.12.2023, whereby, the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 27.07.2023, proposing a demand against the Petitioner has been disposed and a demand of Rs. 18,51,918.60/- including penalty has been raised against the Petitioner.

¶13

W.P.(C) 3632/2024

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:1 9.03.2024 16:50:31

¶17

The order has been passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”),

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner could not respond to the Show Cause Notice dated 27.09.2023 as the petitioner could not access the GST portal. She submits that on a query raised under the Right to Information Act, petitioner was informed that the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled retrospectively with effect from 01.07.2017.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had applied for cancellation of GST registration with effect from 01.01.2018 as petitioner had done business only till 31.12.2017 and has filed returns till that period.

¶20

Learned counsel for respondents submits that the record of the petitioner is not available on the GST portal. He submits that portal is reflecting that the registration has been cancelled retrospectively with effect from 01.07.2017, however, orders are not accessible even to the proper officer.

¶21

He submits that without prejudice to the right of the department to take action in case any infraction is found on the part of the petitioner, he has no objection in case GST registration of the petitioner is cancelled with effect from 01.01.2018.

¶22

We note that the impugned order dated 11.12.2023 has been passed merely on the ground that no reply has been received from the

¶23

W.P.(C) 3632/2024

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:1 9.03.2024 16:50:31

¶27

taxpayer.

¶28

It is not in dispute that once the registration is cancelled retrospectively, the taxpayer is not in a position to access the portal; become aware of any notice or respond thereto.

¶29

In the instant case, since the GST portal shows that the registration of the petitioner has been cancelled retrospectively with effect from 01.07.2017, petitioner would not have been able to receive the show cause notice or access the portal to become aware of any show cause notice or respond thereto.

¶30

In view of the above, we are of the view that impugned order dated 11.12.2023 is not sustainable. The same is accordingly set aside.

¶31

Since both the petitioner as well as respondent want the registration to be cancelled, though for different reasons, we are of the view that interest of justice requires that the registration of the petitioner be deemed to be cancelled with effect from 01.01.2018 i.e., the date of the application filed by the Petitioner seeking cancellation of the GST registration.

¶32

Further, Respondent shall serve a copy of the Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the Act to the petitioner within a period of one week from today. Petitioner shall thereafter respond to the show cause notice within a period of two weeks. The Proper Officer shall adjudicate the show cause notice and pass a speaking order after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

¶33

W.P.(C) 3632/2024

¶34

Page 3 of 4

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:1 9.03.2024 16:50:31

¶37

It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor commented upon the merits of the contentions of either party. All rights and contentions of parties are reserved.

¶38

Petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.

¶39

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

¶40

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J

¶41

MARCH 13, 2024/ vp

¶42

W.P.(C) 3632/2024

¶43

Page 4 of 4

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶45

Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Da te:1 9.03.2024 16:50:31

Goyal Metal Industries , Proprietor Jai Prakash Gupta v. Principal Commissiner of Gst, Department of Trade and Taxes, New Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Goyal Metal Industries , Proprietor Jai Prakash Gupta v. Principal Commissiner of Gst, Department of Trade and Taxes, New Delhi

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

Shreekant Gupta Vs University of Delhi & Ors.

Mazhar Ali and Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Dushyant Poddar Vs Pr Commissioner of Income Tax DELHI-10 & Anr.

Kenisha Agrawal Minor Represented by Father and Natural Guardian Mr Nitin Agrawal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Deepak Chaudhary & Anr. Vs Expert Realty Professionals Private Limited & Anr.

M/S Technology Next through Its Proprietor Sh. Ashim Gupta Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs, Acc Import, New Custom House New Delhi & Anr.

Cpm India Sales and Marketing Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(2) Delhi

Naraina Industrial Area Cetp Society Vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee & Ors.

Sriaanshu Logistics through Proprietor Vs Commissioner of Customs (General)

Singla Enterprises through Its Proprietor Mr Shiv Kumar Singhal Vs Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax and Anr.

Singla Enterprises through Its Proprietor Mr Shiv Kumar Singhal Vs Commissioner Delhi Goods and Service Tax and Others

M/S 3 Shades Events Trhough Its Proprietor Vs Principal Commissioner of Department of Trade and Taxes, Government of NCT of Delhi

Realsteel Tyre Company (India) Vs the Principal Commissioner of GST

Mother Dairy Fruit and Vegetable Private Limited Vs Sales Tax Officer, Class II Ward 207 Zone 11 Delhi & Ors.