TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 emphasizes fairness in cancellation of registration under U.P. GST Act</h1> The High Court allowed the writ petition, emphasizing procedural fairness and statutory compliance in cancellation and revocation of registration under ... Revocation of cancellation of registration of petitioner - rejection of registration without fixing any date or time for hearing and without waiting for any reply from the petitioner and the petitioner had not replied to the notice dated 2.1.2021 within the time specified therein - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the petitioner did not furnish any reply to the show cause notice dated 2.1.2021. However, what is required to be seen is that whether the mandate of section 30 of the Act was complied with by the authority concerned - the show cause notice is required to mention that the petitioner has to furnish a reply to that notice within 7 working days and that his appearance is required before the notice issuing authority on the specified date and time. The notice dated 2.1.2021 that has been enclosed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition reveals that neither the time to file a reply to the notice has been mentioned and neither is the appointed date and time mentioned in the notice. The reason ascribed in the show cause notice dated 2/1/2021 is only that the revocation application is not within the prescribed time. A perusal of the counter affidavit reveals that contents of para-21 of the writ petition have not been replied at all. There is no consideration of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Act in the appellate order. It is evident that in the show cause notice for rejection of the application for revocation of cancellation of registration of the petitioner, neither is the period of days specified to furnish its reply to the notice nor is the appointed date and time for personal hearing mentioned in that notice and this fact has not been rebutted in the counter affidavit. Moreover, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner/applicant - the mandatory requirement of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Act has not been complied with. As such the show cause notice dated 2.1.2021 is no show cause notice in the eyes of law. The subsequent order dated 30.01.2021, rejecting the application for revocation of cancellation, of the authority is questionable - Petition allowed. Issues:1. Cancellation of registration under the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.2. Compliance with Section 30 of the Act for revocation of cancellation of registration.3. Validity of show cause notice and opportunity of being heard.4. Judicial review of the appellate authority's decision.Cancellation of Registration:The petitioner's registration under the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, leading to subsequent attempts by the petitioner to seek revocation of the cancellation. The cancellation was based on non-commencement of business within six months from the date of registration, as per the show cause notice issued.Compliance with Section 30 for Revocation:Section 30 of the Act outlines the procedure for revocation of cancellation of registration, requiring the applicant to apply within 30 days of the cancellation order and be given an opportunity of being heard before rejection. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal citing the application being filed after 30 days, without considering the proviso to Section 30(2) regarding the opportunity of being heard.Validity of Show Cause Notice:The show cause notice for rejection of the application lacked essential details such as the specified time to furnish a reply and the appointed date and time for a personal hearing, as required by the Act. The absence of these crucial elements rendered the notice legally insufficient, depriving the petitioner of the opportunity to present their case effectively.Judicial Review of Appellate Authority's Decision:The High Court found that the appellate authority failed to consider the mandatory requirements of Section 30 and Rule 23, leading to a flawed decision. The Court set aside the appellate authority's order and remitted the case for a fresh decision, emphasizing the necessity of complying with legal provisions and providing the petitioner with a fair opportunity to be heard.In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petition to the extent mentioned, highlighting the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to statutory requirements in matters concerning the cancellation and revocation of registration under the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
