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>GST Registration Cancellation Quashed: Court Condemns Incomprehensible System-Generated Notices Lacking Specific Fraud Allegations</h1> <h3>DBS Tradelink and Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Versus The State of Maharashtra and anr.</h3> DBS Tradelink and Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Versus The State of Maharashtra and anr. - 2022 (64) G.S.T.L. 389 (Bom.) Issues:1. Validity of the Impugned Order dated 05.07.2022 and Show Cause Notice dated 21.04.2022.2. Legality of the show cause notice and the impugned order.3. Allegations of non-application of mind in the documents.4. Compliance with the judgment of the Gujarat High Court.5. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.6. Restoration of petitioner's registration.Analysis:1. The petitioner sought a writ to quash the Impugned Order dated 05.07.2022 and the Show Cause Notice dated 21.04.2022. The court noted that the show cause notice was incomprehensible, lacking specific allegations of fraud or willful misstatement. The digital signature on the document was not verified, raising doubts about its authenticity.2. The court found the impugned order dated 21st April, 2022 to be equally incomprehensible, mentioning contradictory statements regarding the response to the show cause notice. It was observed that both documents indicated a lack of application of mind by the authorities.3. Concerns were raised regarding the system-generated nature of the documents, with the respondent admitting to the lack of manual review. Reference was made to a judgment of the Gujarat High Court emphasizing the necessity of physical notices with complete information. The court criticized the respondents, including GST Network, for failing to address the issue despite the previous court directive.4. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the impugned order and the show cause notice. It directed the respondents to follow the law but refrain from digital communication until the network issues were resolved. The court emphasized the need for physical notices until the problem was rectified.5. The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, highlighting the breach of natural justice and the severe impact on their business. The court acknowledged the petitioner's plight and granted the requested reliefs, ensuring complete relief and justice.6. In the final order, the court directed the respondents to restore the petitioner's registration immediately, before 4.30 p.m. on the same day, and disposed of the petition accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
