2025 (9) TMI 669
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the impugned order for cancellation of GST registration dated 17th March, 2022 (hereinafter, 'impugned order') by which the Petitioner's GST registration has been cancelled retrospectively w.e.f. 29th September, 2018. 3. The Petitioner is a partnership firm of three partners namely, Mr. Pankaj Kapur, Mr. Nikhil Jain and Mr. Hemant Arora. One of the partners, Mr. Hemant Arora has already passed away. 4. The Petitioner closed its business in June 2021. However, on 2nd February 2022, the Petitioner was served with a Show Cause Notice (hereinafter, 'SCN') for cancellation of the GST registration on the ground of non-filing of returns. In the said SCN, there was no ground set out that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ected from the date of the issuance of SCN. The relevant portion of the said decision reads as under: "7. The Court has heard the parties and perused the documents placed on records. The settled legal position is that if the SCN does not contemplate retrospective cancellation, the order cannot be passed directing retrospective cancellation. This position has been reiterated by this Court in various decisions including in 'Subhana Fashion v. Commissioner Delhi Goods and Service Tax (W.P. (C) 12255/2024)', "M/S Balaji Industries v. The Principal Commissioner CGST Delhi North Commissionerate & Anr. (W.P.(C) 11913/2024)' and 'Ridhi Sidhi Enterprises v. Commissioner of Goods & Service Tax (CGST), South Delhi & Anr. (W.P.(C) 8061/2024)'. 8. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... authority by the order dated 14.05.2024 on the ground that the petitioner's appeal was barred by limitation. 10. As noted above, the reason for which the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled was not reflected in the SCN. Although, the petitioner claims that it did not receive the SCN, it is apparent that even if it had, the same provided it no opportunity to respond to the reasons as set out in the impugned order cancelling its GST registration. 11. As noted above, the petitioner is not aggrieved by the cancellation of its GST registration as it had closed down its business. The petitioner is, essentially, aggrieved by cancelling of its GST registration with retrospective effect. 12. The present petition was listed on 29.08....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y to observe that the mere existence of such a power would not in itself be sufficient to sustain its invocation. What we seek to emphasise is that the power to cancel retrospectively can neither be robotic nor routinely applied unless circumstances so warrant. When tested on the aforesaid precepts it becomes ex facie evident that the impugned order of cancellation cannot be sustained. 6. We note that while dealing with the right of the respondents to cancel GST registration with retrospective effect and the manner in which such power should be exercised in accordance with the statutory scheme was an issue which was noticed in Ramesh Chander vs Assistant Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax, Dwarka Division, CGST Delhi & Anr. The Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is correct, it would follow that the proper officer is also required to consider this aspect while passing any order for cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect. Thus, a taxpayer's registration can be cancelled with retrospective effect only where such consequences are intended and are warranted. 11. The show cause notice does not even state that the registration is liable to be cancelled from a retrospective date. 12. The petition is allowed. The impugned show cause notice dated 07.04.2022, order of cancellation dated 13.07.2022 and the order in appeal dated 29.12.2023 are accordingly set aside. GST registration of the petitioner is restored, subject to petitioner filing requisite returns upto date." 7. We furth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he column at the bottom there are no dues stated to be due against the petitioner and the table shows nil demand. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the said order reflected that the GST registration of petitioner stands cancelled from 01.07.2017 even though returns thereafter have been filed by the Petitioner. 8. He further submits that the petitioner is no longer interested in continuing the business and the business has been discontinued. 9. In terms of Section 29(2) of the Act, the proper officer may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit if the circumstances set out in the said sub-section are satisfied. Registration cannot be cancelled with r....