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 cancellation upheld after petitioner admits filing false affidavit claiming reply to show cause notice</h1> <h3>M/s. Jadapalli Munirathnam Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST), Nellore - II Circle,</h3> M/s. Jadapalli Munirathnam Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST), Nellore - II Circle, - 2024 (87) G.S.T.L. 305 (A. P.) Issues Involved: The issues involved in this case are the challenge to the cancellation of GST registration and the rejection of the application for revocation of the cancellation order based on the alleged non-consideration of the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice.Cancellation of GST Registration: The petitioner challenged the cancellation of their GST registration, alleging a violation of natural justice as their reply to the show cause notice was not considered. The impugned order mentioned conflicting information regarding the filing of the reply, leading to confusion. Despite multiple opportunities, the petitioner failed to provide evidence of filing the reply, ultimately admitting in an additional affidavit that the reply was not sent due to oversight. The Court found the petitioner's actions misleading and dismissed the writ petition, imposing a cost of Rs. 50,000 for abusing the court process.Principles of Natural Justice: The petitioner contended that the cancellation order violated the principles of natural justice due to the alleged non-consideration of their reply. The Court noted discrepancies in the impugned order's mention of the reply being filed, emphasizing the importance of accurate documentation in legal proceedings. The petitioner's failure to provide concrete evidence of filing the reply undermined their claim, leading to the dismissal of the petition and imposition of costs.Auto Generation Issue: The Court directed the concerned authority to address the auto generation issue in orders to prevent inconsistencies like those observed in this case. The learned Government Pleader explained that the mention of the reply date in the order was system-generated, but the Court stressed the need for clarity and accuracy in legal documentation. The Court emphasized the importance of diligence in pleadings and criticized the petitioner for misleading the court, ultimately dismissing the petition and imposing costs.Compliance and Remedial Steps: The Court ordered the respondent to address the auto generation issue highlighted in the case and take necessary remedial steps to ensure accurate and consistent order documentation. If another authority is responsible for resolving such issues, the respondent was directed to inform them accordingly. The Court mandated compliance with the directives and closed any pending miscellaneous petitions related to the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
