Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post an Article
Post a New Article
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Co Author :

In case of Co-Author, You may provide Username as per TMI records

Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Articles

Back

All Articles

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
Sort By:
Relevance Date

Order for non-granting GST registration must be a speaking order

Bimal jain
GST Registration Rejection Must Be Explained: Court Sets Aside Order for Rice Mandi Under Rule 9(4) CGST Rules. (4) The Madras High Court ruled that an order rejecting a GST registration must be a speaking order, meaning it should provide clear reasons for the decision. In the case involving a petitioner seeking registration for a rice mandi, the application was rejected without explanation, violating principles of natural justice. The court emphasized that discretion under Rule 9(4) of the CGST Rules does not permit arbitrary decisions. The court set aside the impugned order, instructing that the petitioner be given a hearing and the application be reconsidered with proper reasoning. (AI Summary)

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the matter ofB.C. MOHANKUMAR VERSUS SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL GOODS & SERVICE TAX, KRISHNAGIRI-1 CIRCLE, KRISHNAGIRI [2022 (7) TMI 445 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]has held that the order for cancelling the GST  registration must be aspeaking order and the discretion provided to the department in such cases shall not be used blatantly to violate the principles of natural justice.

Facts:

M/s B.C. Mohan Kumar(“the Petitioner”) had made an application seeking registration in accordance with Section 22 read with Section 25 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act(“the CGST Act”). The registration  was in respect of a rice mandi, for which the application is duly acknowledged, and physical verification was also undertaken. A notice was issued by the Superintendent of Central Goods & Service Tax(“the Respondent”) for seeking clarification as the application did not enclose the details of principal place of business of the Petitioner, which was duly responded by the Petitioner by uploading a copy of rental deed as his principal place of business. An order (“the impugned order”) was passed rejecting the application without assigning any reasons for the rejection. The Petitioner assails the impugned order is cryptic and entirely non-speaking, whereas, as per the Respondent, the word ‘may’ in Rule 9(4) of the CGST Rule grants discretion to the authority for assigning  reasons.

Issue:

  • Whether the impugned order for rejection of registration application was cryptic and non-speaking?

Held:

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in B.C. MOHANKUMAR VERSUS SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL GOODS & SERVICE TAX, KRISHNAGIRI-1 CIRCLE, KRISHNAGIRI [2022 (7) TMI 445 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]held as under:

  • The stated  order is non-speaking, arbitrary and evidently has not taken into account the explanation furnished by the Petitioner.
  • Stated that, the word 'may' only refer to the discretion to reject and not to blatantly violate the principles of natural justice.
  • Noted that, if the assessing authority is inclined to reject the application, he must have assigned  the reasons for such objection and adhere to proper procedure, including due process.
  • Held that, the impugned order is set aside and the Petitioner be heard on the objection raised and the application for registration shall be granted.

(Author can be reached at [email protected])

answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Articles