TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court overturns cancellation order under CGST Act due to failure to consider petitioner's response. Order deemed invalid.</h1> <h3>S Two Solutions Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tondiarpet Assessment Circle, Chennai</h3> The court set aside the cancellation order of registration under the CGST Act, 2017, as it failed to consider the petitioner's response to the show cause ... Cancellation of registration - CGST Act - non-filing of tax returns - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has filed a response dated 20.12.2018, which is referred to in the first paragraph of the impugned order itself. In conclusion, however, the respondent proceeds as though there was no response from the petitioner - thus, the contents of the response have not been taken into consideration at all. The respondent is at liberty to initiate proceedings afresh, if at all, in accordance with law - petition allowed. Issues: Non-consideration of reply in cancellation of registration under CGST Act, 2017The judgment in the case involved the challenge to the order of cancellation of registration under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The main issue was the non-consideration of the reply filed by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice. The petitioner had responded to the notice dated 10.12.2018, which called for a justification for non-filing of tax returns. However, the respondent proceeded with the cancellation order as if there was no response from the petitioner, failing to take into account the contents of the response dated 20.12.2018.The court noted that the impugned order was flawed as it did not consider the petitioner's response, which was clearly mentioned in the first paragraph of the order itself. The failure to take into account the response rendered the cancellation order invalid. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and allowed the writ petition. The respondent was given the liberty to initiate proceedings afresh, if necessary, in accordance with the law. The judgment concluded by closing the connected miscellaneous petition without imposing any costs on either party.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
