Unregistered profit-sharing agreements cannot justify occupation of corporate debtor premises during CIRP; repossession by the Resolution Professional...
The HC quashed the retrospective cancellation of GST registration under SS29 of CGST Act, 2017, finding procedural violations. Neither the SCN nor final order provided material evidence supporting the allegation under SS29(2)(e), nor did they notify the petitioner of intended retrospective cancellation. This procedural defect alone invalidated the action. The court clarified that authorities may continue proceedings regarding alleged fraudulent registration, provided the petitioner receives proper notice with supporting evidence. On time limitation, the court referenced Addichem Speciality LLP, confirming that condonation of delay depends on statutory provisions governing the remedy. The March 20, 2024 order was quashed insofar as it retrospectively canceled registration.
The HC quashed the retrospective cancellation of GST registration under SS29 of CGST Act, 2017, finding procedural violations. Neither the SCN nor final order provided material evidence supporting the allegation under SS29(2)(e), nor did they notify the petitioner of intended retrospective cancellation. This procedural defect alone invalidated the action. The court clarified that authorities may continue proceedings regarding alleged fraudulent registration, provided the petitioner receives proper notice with supporting evidence. On time limitation, the court referenced Addichem Speciality LLP, confirming that condonation of delay depends on statutory provisions governing the remedy. The March 20, 2024 order was quashed insofar as it retrospectively canceled registration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
