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