Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2024 (1) TMI 235

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order'), whereby the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled with retrospective effect from 01.01.2019. The impugned order was passed pursuant to a show cause notice dated 29.09.2022 (hereafter 'the SCN'), whereby the petitioner's GST registration was proposed to be cancelled for the following reasons: "The DDGST VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 20.09.2022 ISSUED CIDE F. No. DGGI/GZU/GR-H/INV/291/22- 23/14255 HAS INFORMED THAT THE PARTY IS NON EXISTENT" 2. The petitioner was called upon to respond to the said SCN within a period of seven working days from the date of the SCN and to appear before the proper officer on 03.10.2022. Additionally, the petitioner's GST registration was suspended with effect from the date of the SCN, that is,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on 18.10.2021. 9. The petitioner is not aggrieved by the cancellation of its GST registration, but is aggrieved by the cancellation being effective with the retrospective date, that is, from 01.01.2019. It is the petitioner's case that it closed its business on 08.02.2021. Accordingly, the petitioner claims that the GST registration was required to be maintained for the period with effect from 01.01.2019 to 08.02.2021. 10. As noted above, the SCN referred to a letter dated 20.09.2022 purportedly informing the concerned officer that the petitioner was non-existent. Admittedly, a copy of the said letter was not forwarded to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner had no knowledge as to why the petitioner was being considered as non-existen....