https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762999 The Bombay HC quashed a GST registration cancellation order where the petitioner failed to furnish bank details under Rule 21(d) read with Rule 10A of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner's appeal was delayed due to the chairman's death after receiving the show cause notice. The HC noted that the appellate authority lacked power to condone delays under Section 107 of the GST Act, but intervened under Article 226, observing that strict technical cancellations obstruct fundamental business rights under Article 19(1)(g) and adversely affect state revenue. The petition was allowed. en-us Wed, 27 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Jul 2025 13:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762999 The Bombay HC quashed a GST registration cancellation order where the petitioner failed to furnish bank details under Rule 21(d) read with Rule 10A of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner's appeal was delayed due to the chairman's death after receiving the show cause notice. The HC noted that the appellate authority lacked power to condone delays under Section 107 of the GST Act, but intervened under Article 226, observing that strict technical cancellations obstruct fundamental business rights under Article 19(1)(g) and adversely affect state revenue. The petition was allowed. Case-Laws GST Wed, 27 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762999