GST registration cancellation upheld as petitioner failed to exhaust statutory remedies under Section 30

The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging GST registration cancellation, finding the petitioner had an adequate alternative remedy under Section 30 of the GST Act. While acknowledging that writ petitions may be maintainable despite alternative remedies when fundamental rights or natural justice principles are violated, the court determined the show cause notice provided adequate particulars. The petitioner failed to utilize available statutory remedies. However, considering the business impact of cancelled registration, the court granted opportunity to challenge the order through proper statutory channels within reasonable time.

---

---

Issues:
The judgment deals with the cancellation of registration of the petitioner under CGST/APGST Act, 2017, and the violation of principles of natural justice and constitutional articles 19 and 21.

Issue 1: Cancellation of Registration
The petitioner, a business entity dealing in iron scrap, was registered under GSTIN No. 37DJTPS3181K1ZA. The 1st respondent issued a show cause notice proposing cancellation of registration based on alleged fraudulent activities by suppliers. The petitioner disputed the allegations, highlighting the lack of incriminating material provided and the violation of natural justice. Despite objections, the 1st respondent canceled the registration, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition.

Issue 2: Violation of Natural Justice
The petitioner argued that the show cause notice did not provide essential details regarding the alleged fraudulent transactions, denying the opportunity to respond effectively. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was based on untenable grounds not raised in the notice, violating principles of natural justice. The Government Pleader argued that the writ petition was not maintainable due to alternative remedies available under the law.

Judgment:
The High Court considered the maintainability of the writ petition in light of the availability of alternative remedies under the GST Act. Referring to legal precedent, the Court noted that a writ petition can be entertained in cases of fundamental rights enforcement, violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or challenge to an act's validity. In this case, the show cause notice contained necessary particulars, and the petitioner had alternative avenues to challenge the impugned order. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. However, the petitioner was granted 15 days to avail of the alternative remedies, either by filing a petition under Section 30 of the GST Act or by appealing the order. The concerned authority was directed to decide on the matter after providing a hearing to both parties. No costs were awarded, and pending applications were closed as a result of the judgment.

---