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>Tax Registration Suspension Resolved: Petitioner Directed to Appear Before CGST Superintendent with Right to Future Legal Challenges</h1> HC granted partial relief in tax registration suspension dispute. Petition disposed of with directive for petitioner to appear before CGST Superintendent ... Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - non-payment of interestRule-22(1)/Sub- Rule-(2A) of Rule-21A of CGST Rules - quashing of Show Cause Notice dated Nil on the ground that there is neither adjudication order nor proper Show Cause Notice - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Tpetitioner is ready and willing to deposit 25% of the impugned demand payable as interest, which offer is not accepted by the Revenue in view of the law laid down in M/s RSB Transmissions (India) Limited [2022 (11) TMI 483 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT]. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner’s request for adjudication is pending before the said authority may be directed to be decided expeditiously. The present petition is allowed on mutually agreeable terms. Issues:Petitioner seeks relief through a Writ of Certiorari for quashing a letter suspending registration due to nonpayment of interest and Show Cause Notices for registration cancellation. The suspension period is challenged under Rule 22(3) of CGST Rules. The petitioner offers to deposit 25% of the interest demand, which is not accepted by the Revenue. The petitioner requests the adjudication of liability to be decided expeditiously.Analysis:The petitioner has prayed for the quashing of a letter suspending their registration due to nonpayment of interest and Show Cause Notices for registration cancellation. The petitioner argues that the suspension period should have been limited to 30 days as per Rule 22(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. In support of this argument, reference is made to a judgment by the High Court of Delhi. On the contrary, the Revenue relies on a judgment by the High Court of Jharkhand, stating that the matter should be decided by the adjudicatory authority. The petitioner is willing to deposit 25% of the interest demand, but the Revenue does not accept this offer based on legal precedent.The petitioner's request for adjudication of liability is pending before the authority. The court disposes of the petition by directing the petitioner to make themselves available for a decision by the Superintendent, CGST, within a specified timeframe. The court reserves liberty for the petitioner to seek other remedies as per the law if needed. It is clarified that no opinion on the merits of the matter has been expressed, leaving all issues open for further consideration.In conclusion, the petition is disposed of with the petitioner required to appear before the designated authority for a decision on the suspension and related matters. The court refrains from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, keeping all issues open for future resolution. Any interlocutory application is also disposed of in line with the main petition.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
