TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 266
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder Section 29(2)(5) of Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'GST Act 2017'). The petitioner filed an application on 19.12.2019 under Section 13 of U.P. GST Act 2017 for revocation of cancellation of registration on the ground that the petitioner had submitted all the pending returns under GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 and, thus, the entire tax liability stood clear with the late fees. In response to the application filed by the petitioner on 19.12.2019, the respondent no. 2 issued a show cause notice on 29.12.2019 calling upon the petitioner to show cause on the following reasons failing which the application of the petitioner shall be decided on ex-parte on the basis of the available records on merits. A copy of the said show cause notice is being quoted herein below: "Reference Number : ZA0912191466860 Date : 29/12/2019 To ABDUL QUALAM 31, TOWN SHAHPUR....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the query and as the petitioner had simply stated that all the liabilities have been cleared by them even they have not disclosed as to on what date they filed return and did not enclose the copy filed by them and the tax payer simply made claims without producing proper evidence which cannot be verified by the division office at this stage. The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that all the records with regard to the deposits made were available on the portal and could be easily verified by the Department, the Appellate Authority, however, in the order although recorded that at the time of personal hearing, the appellant had informed that the Government dues had been deposited and statutory returns have been filed, however, the appeal was rejected mainly on the ground that the jurisdictional authorities are not conforming the facts, he had placed reliance on the mail received from the divisional office on 21.5.2020. The Appellate Authority further recorded that the proper Officer was not satisfied under Rule 23 and in the absence of statutory returns, the facts cannot be verified at that level and, thus, proceeded to dismiss the appeal. This Court, vide order dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion has been obtained by means of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts: Provided that the proper officer shall not cancel the registration without giving the person an opportunity of being heard. A perusal of Section 29 (2)(c) of the said Act 2017, with which the present case is concerned clearly provides for cancellation of registration if the assessee fails to furnish the returns for a continuous period of six months and invoking the said clause the registration of the petitioner was cancelled as on 30.11.2019. Section 30 with the said Act provides a remedy to the person whose registration has been cancelled and in terms of the remedy so provided the petitioner approached the authority for revocation of the registration within the times specified therein. The exercise of powers under Section 30 are governed by Rule 23 of the U.P. GST Rules, 2017 which is as under: "23. Revocation of cancellation of registration.- (1) A registered person, whose registration is cancelled by the proper officer on his own motion, may submit an application for revocation of cancellation of registration, in FORM GST REG-21, to such proper officer, within....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it was incumbent upon the Department to have verified the correctness of averments made in the application. I am sorry to observe that the Department miserably failed to verify the facts from their own records and proceeded to issue a show cause notice which is contained in Annexure 4 to the writ petition and quoted herein above. The manner in which the show cause notice has been issued is wholly unacceptable as it does not record any shortcoming on the part of the assessee. It is not conceivable as to what was required in the show cause notice. A perusal of the said show cause notice clearly highlights the fact that serious quasi-adjudicatory functionaries are being discharged by persons who do not have a legally trained mind and are entrusted in discharging functions affecting huge revenues. The order dated 30.1.2020 passed by the Assistant Commissioner rejecting the application of the petitioner is wholly arbitrary and demonstrates the lack of legally trained mind as there appears to be no effort to verify the correctness of the assertions made by the petitioner at the end of the Department. I am sorry to record that the appellate authority has also committed the same man....