Court overturns cancellation order under CGST Act due to failure to consider petitioner's response. Order deemed invalid. 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 ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Court overturns cancellation order under CGST Act due to failure to consider petitioner's response. Order deemed invalid.
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 notice. The court found the order invalid due to the non-consideration of the reply, leading to the allowance of the writ petition. The respondent was granted the liberty to initiate proceedings again if required, following the law. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed without costs for either party.
Issues: Non-consideration of reply in cancellation of registration under CGST Act, 2017
The 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.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.