TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 890
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....; b) quash and set aside the order of cancellation of RC dated 06.08.2021 and the order of rejection of revocation application dated 08.12.2021 be also set aside; c) restore the RC of the petitioner with immediate effect; d) issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, order or direction." 2. Notice in this writ petition was issued on 10.05.2022, after hearing the matter substantially. 2.1 It is a matter of record, that at that juncture, the respondent/revenue was represented by its senior standing counsel i.e., Mr Harpreet Singh. 2.2 Since then, counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent/revenue. 3. Arguments in the matter were heard, once again, on 30.08.2022, when the following had been recorded by us: "1. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....you fail to furnish a reply within the stipulated 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 08/07/2021..." 6. A perusal of the aforesaid extract would demonstrate, that practically, no reason was furnished for issuance of the SCN. Although, facially, principles of natural justice were sought to be adhered to by the respondent/revenue, the same stood compromised, as nothing was proposed by way of an action that was intended to be taken against the petitioner-consortium. 7. The record shows that the petitioner, thereafter, filed an application. 8. We h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mises. In the current request for revocation of cancellation he has not submitted any proof/explanation in this regard" 13. Consequently, a reply dated 23.11.2021 to the SCN dated 17.11.2021 was filed by the petitioner-consortium, wherein inter alia information was given as to why the petitioner-consortium's unit was not found in existence at the registered premises. 14. There are two aspects to be noticed at this stage. Firstly, when the earlier SCN was issued, which was on 08.07.2021, nothing of this kind was adverted to in the said SCN i.e., that an inspection had been conducted on 05.07.2021, which revealed that the petitioner-consortium's unit was not in existence at the registered premises. Secondly, in the reply dated 23.11.2021,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....e., Pratibha Industries Limited has been ordered to be liquidated by the concerned bench of National Company Law Tribunal [in short "NCLT"] in exercise of powers under Section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. This order was passed on 08.02.2021. 19. It is in this context, that on 29.07.2022, we had issued notice to the liquidator i.e., Mr Anil Mehta. 19.1 Mr Anil Mehta has joined the proceedings today, albeit via videoconferencing (VC). 20. We are informed by Mr Mehta, that he had delegated his powers, inter alia, for contesting this matter to one, Mr Ansoo Saurabh, an officer employed with Pratibha Industries Limited. 21. The record also shows that Mr Ansoo Saurabh has executed vakalatnama in favour of Mr Rajesh Jai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the information contained in the appeal filed before the Joint Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Appeals-I, Delhi i.e., the Appellate Authority. 6. A perusal of the extracts of the order dated 30.08.2022 would show, that the following is not in dispute: (i) In the show-cause notice ["SCN"] issued to the petitioner on 08.07.2021, no reasons were furnished. (ii) A subsequent SCN was issued on 17.11.2021, whereby, the petitioner-consortium, for the first time, came to know that the respondent/revenue had cancelled the registration, on the ground that PIL was found not to be in existence, when inspection was carried out on 05.07.2021. (iii) This aspect of the matter, that is, an inspection was carried out on 05.07.2021 was no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. vs The Commissioner, Delhi Goods and Service Tax & Anr.] (iii) Thirdly, another SCN dated 17.11.2021 was issued, which is not contemplated under the CGST Act, 2017 [in short "Act"]. (iv) Fourthly, the order dated 22.02.2022 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Appeals-I, Delhi is bereft of reasons. The order does not deal with the information given by PIL as regards its relocation. 7.1 In sum, the entire proceedings, right up to the stage of passing of the order-in-appeal was legally flawed. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. 8. Liberty is, however, given to the respondent/revenue, to issue a fresh SCN, if deemed necessary, with regard to the registration certificate, issued under the Act. 8.....