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 with Procedural Safeguards, Petitioner Granted Opportunity to Respond and Defend Case</h1> <h3>M/s. SS Enterprises Through Proprietor (Sh. Vikram Kumar) Versus Principal Commissioner, CGST Delhi, North</h3> M/s. SS Enterprises Through Proprietor (Sh. Vikram Kumar) Versus Principal Commissioner, CGST Delhi, North - 2024:DHC:6840 - DB, 2024 (90) G. S. T. L. 350 ... Issues:Impugning a Show Cause Notice and a cancellation order related to GST registration, application for revocation of cancellation order, rejection of the revocation application, violation of principles of natural justice in passing the cancellation order.Analysis:The petitioner challenged a Show Cause Notice (SCN) and a subsequent order cancelling their GST registration. The petitioner also filed an application for revocation of the cancellation order, leading to another SCN calling for justification. The reasons for revocation included vague address details and a significant turnover within a short period with full GST payment from Input Tax Credit (ITC). However, the petitioner failed to respond to the second SCN or appear before the proper officer, resulting in rejection of the revocation application. The court noted that the initial SCN lacked specific reasons for cancellation based on fraud or misstatement, violating natural justice principles.The court acknowledged the deficiencies in the initial SCN but upheld the cancellation order due to the petitioner's failure to respond to subsequent allegations. The court set aside the rejection of the revocation application to allow the petitioner a chance to address the concerns raised in the second SCN. The petitioner was granted two weeks to respond, and the proper officer was directed to consider the reply and make a decision after providing an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard. The court disposed of the petition accordingly, providing the petitioner with an opportunity to rectify the situation and respond to the allegations raised in the second SCN.
TaxTMI 