2022 (10) TMI 672 - HC - GST

Judicial Relief Granted: GST Registration Cancellation Overturned Due to Procedural Defects in Show Cause Notices

M/s. Hero Wiretex Limited Versus Union Of India, The State of Andhra Pradeshm Goods and Service Tax Officer

HC allowed the writ petition challenging GST registration cancellation. The court found show cause notices defective due to lack of specific legal ... Violation of principles of natural justice - cancellation of the GST registration of petitioner - non-compliance of certain provisions in the GST Act or the Rules made there under - submission of fake Input Tax Credit invoices claiming benefit - HELD THAT:- As the first notice issued is bereft of provisions of law, which are alleged to have been violated; and as the second notice, which was issued on the very same day, contains details, to which no opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit his explanation, this Court is of the opinion that the order under challenge is liable to be set aside and the matter be remanded to the 3rd respondent. The matter is remanded back to the 3rd respondent, who shall issue a fresh notice, giving sufficient time to the petitioner for responding to the same and thereafter, pass orders in accordance with law - petition allowed by way of remand. Issues Involved:Challenge to cancellation of GST registration based on show cause notices lacking legal provisions and material relied upon.Analysis:The Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking relief against the cancellation of GST registration. Two show cause notices were issued, one for non-compliance with GST provisions and another for submitting fake Input Tax Credit invoices. The petitioner challenged these notices, arguing that the material relied upon was not provided, violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner's counsel contended that there was no evidence indicating the material relied upon by the authority. On the other hand, the Government Pleader argued that the material supplied was indeed relied upon. The first notice did not specify the violated provisions, and the second notice was not served on the petitioner, depriving them of a chance to respond.The Court observed that the first notice lacked the provisions of law allegedly violated and the second notice, issued on the same day, contained details without allowing the petitioner to respond. Consequently, the Court held that the order was flawed and remanded the matter to the 3rd respondent. The Writ Petition was allowed, setting aside the challenged order and instructing the 3rd respondent to issue a fresh notice, granting the petitioner sufficient time to respond before passing lawful orders. No costs were awarded, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.