TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 53
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....) The petitioner has challenged an order dated 23.04.2021 passed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Charge-IV, Tripura cancelling the petitioner's registration under Tripura Goods and Services Tax Act as well as Central Goods and Services Tax Act. 2. Brief facts are as under: The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act and is engaged in the business of providing goods on rental basis to its customers across the country including in the State of Tripura. In the State of Tripura the petitioner commenced its business in the year 2013-14. The petitioner was granted registration under CGST as well as State GST Acts. According to the petitioner whenever demand for any capital goods or machinery is received by the petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... date or fail to appear for personal hearing on the appointed date and time, the case will be decided ex parte on the basis of available records and on merits. Please note that your registration stands suspended with effect from 06/12/2020." (emphasis supplied by us) 4. The petitioner replied to the said show-cause notice dated 06.12.2020 under a letter dated 16.01.2021 and stated as under: "Respected Sir, The above named Taxpayer acknowledges the receipt of SCN dated 06/12/2020 for cancellation of registration on the matter of non compliance of any specified provision in GST. That it is pertinent to mention herein that the taxpayer is regular in paying their taxes and regular in filing their return....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e period between July, 2017 to March, 2018. Petitioner replied to the said notice under a letter dated 28.01.2021 and explained its business model in detail. On 05.01.2021 the petitioner wrote to the Superintendent of Taxes and requested him to withdraw the suspension of the petitioner's registration. 6. On 23.04.2021 the Superintendent of Taxes passed the impugned order and cancelled the petitioner's registration effective from 01.07.2017. Consequently, he also computed certain amounts the petitioner would have to pay by way of Central and State GST as well as IGST. This order the petitioner has challenged in the present petition. 7. In this order [at Annexure-P/21] the Superintendent of Taxes had stated as under: "1. The gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the grounds on which the Superintendent of Taxes proposed to cancel the petitioner's registration. The entire purpose of issuance of show-cause notice frustrated because the Superintendent of Taxes merely forwarded a printed blank format of a show-cause notice to the petitioner asking the petitioner to meet with non-existent and non-disclosed grounds. The very purpose of issuance of show-cause notice is to elicit a proper response from the noticee so that on fair assessment of the materials on record after considering the representation of the noticee the competent authority can come to a just conclusion whether the noticee had exposed itself to the liability of cancellation of the registration. If such a show-cause notice does not specify ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpty formality. This apart, admittedly, so far no order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration has been passed. If that be so, without resorting to the power of suspending the registration, if there is any, the respondent surely cannot block the petitioner's GST account on the official portal. Any such action would prevent the petitioner from carrying on his business in lawful manner. Such an action would have the effect of suspension of the petitioner's registration." 11. Even the grounds stated in the supporting order are totally unacceptable. The Superintendent has passed a rather long order, going into range of legal issues not related to the case on hand. He had passed a similar order raising tax demands against the petitioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... support of the demand is more difficult than finding a needle from a haystack. Howsoever hard we may try, it is difficult to separate the grain from the chaff. 8. The order passed by the Superintendent and the approach that he has adopted is totally unsatisfactory. To begin with, the order reads more like a thesis in several fields of law in which he has tried to exhibit his half-baked, incomplete and internet acquired knowledge, in the process completely losing sight of the focal issue. He has made his order needlessly verbose, in the process not deciding the vital issues at all. More importantly he has referred to materials, documents and judgments and there is no evidence that he ever shared the same with the petitioner before ....