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 with retrospective effect quashed due to lack of specific reasons under Section 29</h1> <h3>Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises Versus Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (CGST), South Delhi & Anr.</h3> Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises Versus Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (CGST), South Delhi & Anr. - 2024 (90) G.S.T.L. 257 (Del.) Issues Involved:1. Retrospective cancellation of GST registration.2. Compliance with procedural requirements under Section 29 of the CGST Act.3. Adequacy of reasons provided for cancellation.4. Consequences of retrospective cancellation on taxpayers and their customers.Detailed Analysis:1. Retrospective Cancellation of GST Registration:The petitioner challenged the retrospective cancellation of its GST registration, effective from 28 September 2017, as per the order dated 25 July 2023. The court scrutinized the statutory provisions under Section 29 of the CGST Act, which permits the cancellation of registration with retrospective effect under specific circumstances, such as fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. However, the court emphasized that the mere existence of such power does not justify its arbitrary application. The order must demonstrate a reasoned decision-making process, reflecting due application of mind, especially given the significant consequences of retroactive cancellation.2. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under Section 29 of the CGST Act:The court examined whether the procedural requirements under Section 29 were adhered to. It was noted that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued on 10 July 2023 did not adequately specify the reasons for the proposed cancellation, nor did it provide the petitioner with a fair opportunity to respond. The court highlighted that the SCN must clearly outline the grounds for cancellation and provide the taxpayer an opportunity to be heard, as mandated by the proviso to Section 29(2).3. Adequacy of Reasons Provided for Cancellation:The judgment underscored the necessity for the order of cancellation to be reasoned and not merely a mechanical exercise of power. The court referred to previous judgments, such as Ramesh Chander vs Assistant Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax, which established that retrospective cancellation requires objective criteria and cannot be based solely on non-compliance with return filing. The lack of specific and cogent reasons in the cancellation order rendered it unsustainable.4. Consequences of Retrospective Cancellation on Taxpayers and Their Customers:The court also considered the broader implications of retrospective cancellation, particularly the denial of input tax credit to the taxpayer's customers for the period during which the registration is deemed cancelled. The judgment emphasized that such consequences must be intended and warranted, requiring careful consideration by the proper officer before invoking retrospective cancellation.Conclusion:In light of the authority's failure to provide adequate reasons for the retroactive cancellation, the court quashed the impugned order dated 25 July 2023. The decision was made without prejudice to the respondents' right to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the law. The judgment reinforces the principle that the exercise of statutory powers must be accompanied by transparency, fairness, and adherence to procedural safeguards.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
