2025 (6) TMI 1568

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....BY ADVS. SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.R.SREEJITH SMT.K.KRISHNA SHRI.JOY P.J. SMT.PARVATHY MENON FOR THE RESPONDENT : BY ADV SHRI.P.R.SREEJITH, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4 order passed by the 1st respondent, by which the registration of the petitioner under the CGST Act, 2017 was cancelled. The specific ground based on which the challenge raised by the peti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i.Achyuth Menon the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.P.R Sreejith, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 4. The specific contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, Ext.P3 cannot be treated as a proper notice under Rule 22 of CGST Rules for two reasons. Firstly, it does not contain any specific reasons which prompted the 1st respondent to initiate ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g made. On going through Ext.P3 show cause notice it is seen that, both the conditions are not complied with. Even though in Ext.P3, the petitioner was granted seven working days for submitting a reply, the order was seen passed on 21.06.2023, i.e before expiry of seven days and no specific reasons or violation are mentioned in the Ext.P3 show cause notice. What is mentioned in Ext.P3 was as follo....