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 Cancelled: Procedural Non-Compliance Leads to Dismissal of Writ Petition Under Section 29(2)(e)</h1> <h3>Karmaxx Infotech Rep. By its Proprietor, Mohammed Salem Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Harbour Assessment Circle, Chennai</h3> Karmaxx Infotech Rep. By its Proprietor, Mohammed Salem Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Harbour Assessment Circle, Chennai - 2023 (75) G.S.T.L. 423 ... Issues involved:The petitioner challenged an order of cancellation of registration under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, citing lack of specific reasons and reliance on Joint Commissioner's instructions.Summary:Challenge to Order of Cancellation:The petitioner contested the cancellation order, arguing it was non-speaking and solely referenced Section 29(2)(e) of the Act. The petitioner also highlighted reliance on the Joint Commissioner's instructions for the cancellation, questioning the basis of the decision.Contentions of the Parties:The petitioner's counsel referred to legal precedents emphasizing the necessity of specific reasons in show-cause notices for effective response. In contrast, the respondent's counsel argued that the petitioner comprehended the grounds for cancellation as Section 29(2)(e) clearly addresses fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts.Petitioner's Response:The petitioner's reply acknowledged a change in the principal place of business without proper notification, indicating an error on their part. Additionally, the reply mentioned an inspection regarding the valuation of second-hand goods, demonstrating awareness of the events leading to the notice issuance.Court's Decision:Despite the petitioner's submission of supporting documents and a request for restoration of registration, the Court noted the lack of cooperation in the proceedings. The delay in filing the reply beyond the stipulated timeline and failure to attend the officer's hearing were critical factors leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.Conclusion:The Court declined intervention due to the petitioner's non-compliance with procedural requirements and lack of cooperation in the assessment proceedings. The dismissal of the petition was based on the petitioner's failure to adhere to the timeline and participate effectively in the regulatory process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
