2024 (10) TMI 1655 - HC - GST

GST registration cannot be cancelled retrospectively without proper reasons and notice to taxpayer

ESSAR FOODS AND COMMODITIES   Versus COMMISSIONER OF CGST DELHI WEST

The Delhi HC allowed the petition challenging retrospective cancellation of GST registration without explicit reasons and notice to the taxpayer. The ... Cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect without explicit reasons and notice to the taxpayer - HELD THAT:- While dealing with an identical question, in Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax (CGST), South Delhi & Anr. [2024 (10) TMI 278 - DELHI HIGH COURT] it is held that 'It is important to note that, according to the respondent, one of the consequences for cancelling a tax payer’s registration with retrospective effect is that the taxpayer’s customers are denied the input tax credit availed in respect of the supplies made by the tax payer during such period. Although, we do not consider it apposite to examine this aspect but assuming that the respondent’s contention in required to consider this aspect while passing any order for cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect. Thus, a taxpayer's registration can be cancelled with retrospective effect only where such consequences are intended and are warranted.' Conclusion - The mere existence of a power to cancel with retrospective effect would not justify such a step being adopted unless reasons be assigned to support such a decision and the assessee being placed on due notice. The impugned order cannot be sustained - petition allowed. The primary legal questions considered by the Court include:1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration can be applied retrospectively without explicit reasons and notice to the taxpayer.2. The validity and correctness of the impugned orders rejecting the revocation of cancellation application and upholding retrospective cancellation.3. The appropriate effective date of cancellation of GST registration in light of procedural fairness and statutory provisions.4. The scope and exercise of powers under Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) regarding cancellation of registration, particularly retrospective cancellation.5. Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief from penalties, interest, or other charges in relation to post-restoration returns.Issue-wise Detailed AnalysisIssue 1: Legality of Retrospective Cancellation of GST RegistrationLegal Framework and Precedents: Section 29(2) of the CGST Act empowers the proper officer to cancel GST registration from such date, including retrospective dates, as deemed fit if conditions are met. However, this power is not unfettered and must be exercised with due application of mind, supported by reasons and objective criteria. The Court referred extensively to precedents including Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises and Delhi Polymers, which emphasized that retrospective cancellation cannot be mechanical or routine and requires clear articulation of reasons and due notice to the taxpayer.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the impugned Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 22 October 2022 did not indicate any intent to cancel registration retrospectively. The cancellation order dated 22 October 2022, which followed, imposed retrospective cancellation effective from 30 November 2017 without assigning any reasons or providing the petitioner an opportunity to contest such retrospective effect.The Court reiterated that retrospective cancellation has 'deleterious consequences' such as denial of input tax credit to customers and hence must be exercised cautiously and transparently. The absence of any reasons or indication in the SCN about retrospective cancellation rendered the order unsustainable.Key Evidence and Findings: The SCN and cancellation order were silent on reasons for retrospective effect. The petitioner was not put on notice that retrospective cancellation was contemplated, violating principles of natural justice.Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principles from prior rulings that retrospective cancellation requires clear reasons and notice. Since these were lacking, the retrospective cancellation was held invalid.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents argued the power under Section 29(2) to cancel retrospectively. The Court acknowledged this power but emphasized it cannot be exercised arbitrarily or without due process. The petitioner's failure to respond to the SCN did not justify retrospective cancellation without reasons.Conclusion: The retrospective cancellation from 30 November 2017 was quashed for lack of reasoned order and notice.Issue 2: Validity of Rejection of Revocation Application and AppealLegal Framework and Precedents: The procedure for revocation of cancellation is governed by the CGST Act and Rules. The Court relied on the principle that any order rejecting revocation must be reasoned and consistent with statutory provisions.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The rejection of revocation dated 30 December 2022 and the appellate order dated 16 June 2023 were upheld by the respondents without addressing the fundamental flaw of retrospective cancellation without notice or reasons. Given the invalidity of the underlying cancellation order, the rejection of revocation was also unsustainable.Key Evidence and Findings: The impugned orders did not provide adequate reasoning to justify retrospective cancellation or rejection of revocation.Application of Law to Facts: Since the cancellation order was invalid, the rejection of revocation application based on that order was also invalid.Treatment of Competing Arguments: Respondents maintained the cancellation and rejection of revocation were lawful. The Court found this untenable due to procedural defects and lack of reasons.Conclusion: Both the rejection of revocation and appellate orders were quashed.Issue 3: Appropriate Effective Date of CancellationLegal Framework and Precedents: Section 29(2) allows cancellation from any date deemed fit. Precedents require that retrospective cancellation must be justified and notified.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court held that since the SCN was issued on 22 October 2022, and no retrospective cancellation was indicated, the effective date of cancellation should be the date of the SCN itself. This aligns with principles of fairness and statutory intent.Key Evidence and Findings: The SCN suspended registration from 22 October 2022 and did not mention retrospective effect. The cancellation order's retrospective date was arbitrary.Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principle that cancellation should take effect from the date of SCN when no retrospective effect is properly communicated or reasoned.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner sought cancellation from the SCN date, while respondents maintained the retrospective date. The Court favored the petitioner's position for procedural fairness.Conclusion: Cancellation shall take effect from 22 October 2022, the date of issuance of the SCN.Issue 4: Relief from Penalties, Interest, and Charges Post-RestorationLegal Framework and Precedents: Prior rulings (notably Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises) clarified that taxpayers should not be penalized for delayed filing during suspension or invalid cancellation periods, provided they file returns and submit affidavits stating no business was conducted.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: While the present order did not explicitly grant such relief, the Court's reliance on precedents implies that the petitioner would be entitled to protection from penalties or interest for delayed filings post-restoration, subject to compliance with conditions such as affidavit submission.Key Evidence and Findings: No penalties or dues were shown in the cancellation order, and the petitioner had not conducted business during suspension.Application of Law to Facts: The petitioner's entitlement to relief aligns with the principle of fairness and statutory scheme.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents did not contest this relief explicitly in the present case.Conclusion: The petitioner is entitled to relief from penalties and interest for delayed filings during suspension, subject to conditions.Significant Holdings'The mere existence or conferral of that power [to cancel retrospectively] would not justify a revocation of registration. The order under Section 29(2) must itself reflect the reasons which may have weighed upon the respondents to cancel registration with retrospective effect.''The power to cancel retrospectively can neither be robotic nor routinely applied unless circumstances so warrant.''Retrospective cancellation has deleterious consequences which makes it all the more vital that the order be reasoned and demonstrative of due application of mind.''Since the SCN dated 22 October 2022 did not indicate retrospective cancellation, the cancellation order imposing retrospective effect from 30 November 2017 is unsustainable.''Cancellation of registration shall take effect from the date of issuance of the SCN, i.e., 22 October 2022.''The impugned orders rejecting revocation and upholding retrospective cancellation are quashed for lack of reasons and violation of principles of natural justice.'The Court's final determination was to allow the writ petition, quash the impugned orders, and direct that the cancellation of registration shall take effect from 22 October 2022, the date of the SCN. The Court emphasized the necessity of reasoned orders and procedural fairness in exercising retrospective cancellation powers under Section 29(2) of the CGST Act.