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

GST Registration Cancellation: Judicial Safeguards and the Principle of Natural Justice

Abhishek Raja
GST registration cancellation requires natural justice principles and proper reasoning beyond automatic non-filing penalties Recent Bombay High Court judgments establish that GST registration cancellation must follow natural justice principles. Courts ruled that cancellations cannot be automatic for non-filing returns; assessees must receive opportunities to comply. Technical portal glitches cannot prejudice taxpayers' rights to respond. Administrative orders must contain independent reasoning beyond merely restating show-cause notices. Revenue authorities bear the burden of proving fraud allegations with specific evidence rather than bald assertions. Cancellation orders cannot rely on grounds not mentioned in original show-cause notices. These rulings emphasize that while GST authorities have enforcement powers, procedural fairness and reasoned decision-making are mandatory requirements that protect taxpayers' substantive rights. (AI Summary)

The Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, while streamlining indirect taxation, has seen its share of legal challenges, particularly concerning the cancellation of registration. Recent judgments by the Bombay High Court underscore that GST registration is not merely a procedural formality but a substantive right, and its cancellation must adhere to principles of natural justice. This article analyses key rulings that reinforce these safeguards.

1. The Right to Be Heard: A Non-Negotiable Principle

In M/s. Sambhaji Multi Services Versus The Commissioner State GST Bhavan, Aurangabad., The Deputy Commissioner, State Tax (Appeal), Aurangabad., The State Tax Officer, Aurangabad. - 2024 (7) TMI 804 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT held that cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns should not be automatic. The assessee must be granted an opportunity to comply, subject to conditions. This aligns with the broader judicial trend ensuring that technical defaults do not extinguish substantive rights.

Similarly, in Sumtinath Trading Private Limited Versus Union of India and Assistant Commissioner of CGST & CE, Mumbai - 2024 (11) TMI 1207 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT, the Court intervened when the GST portal’s technical glitches prevented the assessee from filing a reply electronically. The physical submission, though overlooked, was held valid, emphasizing that procedural hurdles should not prejudice assessees.

2. Reasoned Orders: A Basic Tenet of Administrative Fairness

A recurring issue in GST cancellations is the lack of reasoned orders. In M/s. Vijaynath Roof And Wall Cladding Systems Pvt. Ltd. Rep. By Its Director Vijaynatha V Shetty Versus State Of Goa, Rep. Thr. The Office Of Chief Secretary & 2 Ors. - 2024 (10) TMI 135 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT, the High Court struck down an order that merely parroted the show-cause notice without independent reasoning. The Court reiterated that administrative orders affecting rights must disclose application of mind.

Ganesh Enterprises Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. - 2024 (5) TMI 246 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT  and Ramji Enterprises & Ors. Versus Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. - 2023 (7) TMI 706 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT further cemented this principle. Where cancellation orders were issued mechanically or on grounds not mentioned in the show-cause notice, they were quashed for violating natural justice.

3. Allegations of Fraud: Burden of Proof Lies on Revenue

In M/s. Maharashtra Scrap Versus Union of India, State of Maharashtra, Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise, Nashik, The Joint Commissioner of Central Tax, Aurangabad. Superintendent of State Tax, Latur. - 2024 (10) TMI 1048 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT, the Revenue alleged fraudulent registration but failed to provide specifics. The Court held that bald assertions without evidence cannot justify cancellation. This mirrors Ashok Kumar Vishwakarma Versus Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue & Ors. - 2023 (8) TMI 890 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT where the assessee’s registration was cancelled based on undisclosed material, rendering the order arbitrary.

4. Deviation from SCN Grounds: A Fatal Flaw

Pakiza Steel LLP Versus Union of India & Ors. - 2023 (5) TMI 75 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and Ramji Enterprises (supra) highlight that if the cancellation order relies on grounds not raised in the show-cause notice, it is legally untenable. The assessee must have a fair opportunity to rebut allegations.

Conclusion: GST Registration as a Fundamental Right?

While the GST law empowers authorities to act against non-compliance, these judgments affirm that such powers are not absolute. Procedural fairness, reasoned orders, and adherence to the principles of natural justice are indispensable. The Bombay High Court’s rulings serve as a reminder that tax administration must balance enforcement with equity. As the jurisprudence evolves, GST registration may well be recognized not just as a statutory privilege but a fundamental right to livelihood under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

-----
Abhishek Raja Ram
9810638155

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