AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 1370
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the consideration of the issues raised in this writ petition will indicate that the petitioner was issued with Ext.P1 show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the registration granted to the petitioner shall not be canceled for failure to file returns for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner did not respond to the show cause notice and Ext.P2 order dated 05.05.2022 was issued under Section 29 of the CGST / SGST Acts canceling the registration granted to the petitioner. The petitioner did not file any application for revocation as provided for in Section 30 of the CGST / SGST Acts, but instead approached the appellate authority by filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST / SGST Acts. The appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls vs. State of Kerala [(1989)75 STC 63] and that of the Court of Appeal in Baker Re, Nichols vs. Baker [(1890)44 Ch D 262 (CA)] will indicate that the use of the words 'may' in a statutory provision generally indicates that the provision is only directory and not mandatory. He relies on the judgments of the Madras High court in W.P.(C)No.20035/22 dated 29.08.2022 and as also the judgment in Suguna Cut Piece Centre vs. Appellate Dy. Commissioner [(2022)99 GSTR 386] to contend that no useful purpose will be served by keeping an assessee out of the scheme of the scheme of the GST laws on account of cancellation of registration. He states that every tax law must be viewed as one facilitating business and not as an oppressive system whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion is liable to be cancelled for the following reasons: Returns furnished by you under Section 39 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Observations Failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months. You are hereby directed to furnish a reply to the notice within thirty days from the date of service of notice." The notice is absolutely vague and it is not clearly specified with any clarity, the reasons for proposing cancellation even the period for which there was alleged failure to file returns is not specified. I have in my judgment in W.P (C) No.28783/2022 held as follows:- "5. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Govern....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor [(1936) 63 IA 372 : AIR 1936 PC 253] who stated as under: "[W]here a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all." 32. This rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of V.P. [AIR 1954 SC 322 : 1954 SCR 1098] and again in Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1961 SC 1527 : (1962) 1 SCR 662]. These cases were considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh [AIR 1964 SC 358 : (1964) 1 SCWR 57] and the rule laid down in Nazir Ahmad case [(1936) 63 IA 372 : AIR 1936 PC 253] was again upheld. This rule has since been applied to the exercise of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tice within thirty days from the date of service of this notice. xx xx xx xx xx xx" Apart from the fact that Ext.P.5 is issued in the wrong form, it is also bad for the complete absence of any detail. It is clearly vague and therefore the law laid down in the judgments of the Gujarat High Court in Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing (supra) and Sing Traders (supra) clearly apply. I am in respectful agreement with the views expressed in those decisions. The judgments of the Karnataka High Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court relied on by the learned Senior Government Pleader appear to have been handed down in completely different fact situations. I am also not inclined to follow the law laid down by the Court in those judgments....