TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 256
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er has prayed for the following reliefs: "(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow the present Petition. (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction quashing and setting aside the impugned Order dated 25.10.2023 passed by the Ld. Respondent No. 3 [Annexure JJ as well as the Order dated 14.12.2021 passed by the Ld. Respondent No. 2 [Annexure E] and thereby restore the registration of the Petitioner Firm w.e.f. 24.05.2021. (C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction and direct the Ld. Respondents to revoke the cancella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he business, the petitioner applied for cancellation of registration on 01.11.2021. A notice dated 01.11.2021 seeking additional information / clarification / documents relating to application for cancellation came to be issued by the respondent No. 2 which was duly responded by the petitioner. The Respondent No. 2, vide order dated 30.11.2021, rejected the application for cancellation of registration on the ground "Documents Uploaded Are Having Significant Discrepancies, Hence Application Deserves To Be Rejected." 6. Thereafter on 30.11.2021 the petitioner was issued an online show cause notice by the respondent No. 2 calling upon to reply as to why the registration should not be cancelled. The petitioner was also given time to respond to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 03/2023 dated 31/03/2023. The aforesaid show cause notice dated 11.05.2023 was not responded by the petitioner and therefore, respondent No. 2, vide order dated 24.05.2023, rejected the application seeking revocation of cancellation of registration on the ground that no reply was furnished to the show cause notice dated 11.05.2023. 9. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred another application on 30.05.2023 for revocation of cancellation of registration. In response to the said application, respondent No. 2 issued a show cause notice dated 05.06.2023 for rejection of application for revocation of cancellation of registration on the ground that the revocation application of the petitioner has already been rejected on 24.05 2023. The aforesa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assed by respondent no. 2 rejecting the application seeking revocation of cancellation of registration, the petitioner has preferred this petition. 14. Respondent no.3 rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of revocation of cancellation order on the ground that the application of revocation made by the petitioner was not within the extended period as per Notification No. 03/2023 dated 31.03.2023 as the case of the petitioner was not falling within clause (b) and clause (c) of section 29 of the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (For short "the GGST Act") as the said notification would be applicable only to the persons who have not filed return for the financial year beyond three months or continuous period as ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the dealer by RPAD. 18.2 Over a period of time, we have noticed in many matters that the impugned order cancelling the registration of a dealer travels beyond the scope of the show cause notice. Many times, the dealer is taken by surprise when he gets to read in the order that the authority has relied upon some inspection report or spot visit report etc. If the authority wants to rely upon any particular piece of evidence then it owes a duty to first bring it to the notice of the dealer so that if the dealer has anything to say in that regard, he may do so. Even if the authority wants to rely on any documentary evidence, the dealer should be first put to the notice of such documentary evidence and only thereafter, it may be looked in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by this Court. Respondent no.3 also rejected the appeal without referring to the details submitted by the petitioner. 17. In the present case, order of cancellation of registration is therefore, passed without assigning any reason by the respondent authority and penalty was imposed without any notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and appeal filed by the petitioner under section 107 of the GST Act against the order of rejection of application for revocation of cancellation is also dismissed. 18. As the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, respondent authority will not be able to exercise revisional power under section 108 of the GST Act. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the appellate author....