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>High Court quashes GST registration cancellation for procedural violations, orders fresh hearing with personal appearance</h1> <h3>Sumtinath Trading Private Limited Versus Union of India and Assistant Commissioner of CGST & CE, Mumbai</h3> Sumtinath Trading Private Limited Versus Union of India and Assistant Commissioner of CGST & CE, Mumbai - 2024:BHC - AS:44101 - DB, 2025 (93) G.S.T.L. 43 ... Issues: Failure of natural justice in cancellation of GST registration, Petitioner's claim of confusion regarding cancellation order, Failure of Petitioner to file a reply and attend personal hearing, Setting aside cancellation order and directing fresh consideration, Payment of costs to Tata Memorial Hospital.Analysis:The High Court entertained the Petitioner's challenge against the cancellation of their GST registration due to a perceived failure of natural justice. The Petitioner was issued a show-cause notice but faced difficulties in filing a reply electronically. Despite submitting a physical reply later, the portal displayed remarks of cancellation without proper communication or a formal order to the Petitioner. The Court acknowledged the Petitioner's confusion regarding the status of the remarks and emphasized the importance of natural justice in such matters. However, the Court also noted the Petitioner's delay in responding to the initial notice, highlighting a lack of diligence on their part.The Court recognized the significant civil consequences of the registration cancellation on the Petitioner's diamond import-export business. In the interest of justice, the Court set aside the cancellation order and directed the second Respondent to reconsider the show-cause notice afresh, taking into account the Petitioner's reply. The Court mandated a personal hearing for the Petitioner within three months, subject to the payment of costs to Tata Memorial Hospital. The Court specified the payment details and timeline for the costs, emphasizing the importance of proof of payment to proceed with the hearing process. The Court also required the second Respondent to provide necessary documents to the Petitioner for a fair and effective personal hearing.Failure to pay the costs within the stipulated timeline would result in the dismissal of the Petition, with additional costs payable to Tata Memorial Hospital. The Court left all contentions on merits open, as the judgment focused on procedural aspects rather than the substantive issues of the case. Ultimately, the Court made the rule absolute to the extent of setting aside the cancellation order, directing a fresh consideration, and imposing costs on the Petitioner.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
