GST Registration Cancellation Overturned: Procedural Flaws Invalidate Order, Authorities Directed to Reconsider with Fair Hearing

HC set aside GST registration cancellation order due to procedural irregularities. The court found the show cause notice deficient and the cancellation order unsustainable. Directed tax authorities to reconsider the matter, provide petitioner opportunity to be heard, and issue a reasoned order within two weeks after reviewing submitted documents.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves a challenge to a show cause notice and an order passed by the concerned authority regarding the cancellation of GST registration.

Details of the judgment:
The petitioner, an individual conducting business as a sole proprietor, challenged a show cause notice dated 25.01.2023 and an order dated 14.02.2023 for the cancellation of GST registration. The petitioner claimed to operate a business for exporting automobile parts and hardware products from a specific location. The show cause notice was issued due to a delayed response to summons and failure to provide documents on time. The petitioner responded to the notice, explaining the reasons for the delay and expressing willingness to take responsibility. However, the concerned officer proceeded to cancel the registration citing the non-existence of the taxpayer based on a letter from the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner contended that the cancellation was erroneous as he continued business operations from the registered premises. It was argued that the show cause notice did not meet the required standards and failed to provide a discernible reason for adverse action, violating principles of natural justice. The court found both the show cause notice and the impugned order unsustainable, setting aside the order and remanding the matter for reconsideration after affording the petitioner a full opportunity to be heard. The petitioner was granted the liberty to file a response and appear before the concerned officer with relevant documents. The officer was directed to consider the objections raised and issue a speaking order within two weeks.

Separate Judgment:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.

---