TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 62
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed Standing Counsel have been marked as X and placed on record. The petitioner states, he was granted registration under the UPGST Act, 2017. Initially a show cause notice proposing to cancel the petitioner's registration was uploaded on the GST Portal. It is dated 5.4.2018. That notice was wholly unintelligible, inasmuch as substance of the notice/reasons appeared in garbage language/symbols. This fact is admitted to the State. According to the learned Standing Counsel, realizing the above mistake, the respondent authorities issued a physical notice to the petitioner on the same date. Its copy has been produced along with the written instructions and has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner. Pursuant thereto the respo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... despite the order cancelling the petitioner's registration, the GST Portal continued to disclose the status of the petitioner firm as "active". Occasioned by that the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector-17, Ghaziabad wrote to the Joint Commissioner (IT), Commercial Tax, Lucknow, dated 25.6.2020 seeking reconciliation of the aforesaid discrepancy. Consequent to that communication, on 15.7.2020 the impugned order regarding cancellation of petitioner's registration has been served on the petitioner. Thus according to the learned Standing Counsel, due notice had been issued to the petitioner and thereafter the order dated 30.6.2018 was passed to cancel the petitioner's registration. Only technical issues have been resolve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 221003-VARANASI, GSTN- 09DYBPK2587N3ZP and the numerals "7" and "0-325" all other characters appearing in the paragraph i.e. paragraph meant to contain the reason to cancel the registration are "?", only. As to the physical copy of the notice claimed to have been served, we find that the instructions produced by the learned Standing Counsel only contain a copy of that communication but there is neither a firm assertion nor any proof of service of such notice. The narrative appended to the instructions received also does not recite in any way that the physical copy of the notice had been served on the petitioner, on any particular date. Same is the position with respect to the order dated 30.6.2018. In fact that order is not even clai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 5.4.2018 as served on the petitioner was unintelligible and physical copy of the said notice was not served at the relevant time, the order cancelling the petitioner's registration is found to be wholly ex-parte being contrary to the mandatory requirement of the first proviso to Section 29(2) of the Act. As to the delay, the petitioner has explained the same on account of the spread of the pandemic COVID-19. In the peculiar facts of the present case as have been noted above, we lift the bar of alternative remedy as we find that the petitioner's registration was cancelled without issuance of any prior show cause notice. Also, the delay is largely on account of the conduct of the State respondents or conduct attributable to ....