TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 846
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... & 494 Extension Street No. 11, Ground Floor, Jeevan Park, New Delhi. The Petitioner obtained a GST registration bearing no. 07HALPK9370K1ZX. A Show Cause Notice (hereinafter, 'SCN') was issued to the Petitioner on 6th January, 2025 seeking certain bank details from the Petitioner to which a reply was duly filed by the Petitioner and, thereafter, the proceedings were dropped on 7th March, 2025. 4. However, on the very same day i.e., 7th March, 2025 another SCN was issued to the Petitioner giving various reasons for cancellation of the GST registration of the Petitioner. The said reasons are as under: "1. Section 29(2)(e)-registration obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts 2. Rule 21(a)-Person does not conduct any business from declared place of business/place of business not found 3. Rule 21(b)-person issues invoice or bill without supply of goods or services or both in violation of the provisions of the Act, or the rules made thereunder 4. Rule 21(d)-person violates the provision of rule 10A (Bank details) 5. Rule 21(e)-person avails ITC in violation of the provisions of section 16 of the Act or the rules made....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n. 11. It is also important to note that the impugned order sets out a tabular statement, which indicates that no amount has been determined as payable by the petitioner. The Central Tax, State Tax, Integrated Tax and Cess payable by the petitioner is reflected as, "0.0". 12. Apart from the above, the impugned order has also been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Although the SCN called upon the petitioner to appear for a personal hearing at the appointed date and time, no such date or time was indicated. Thus, in effect the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to be heard. 13. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order. The respondents are directed to restore the petitioner's GST registration forthwith." 9. The relevant part of the judgment in "M/s Balaji Industries (Vipin Kumar) (Supra) is as under: "8. It is apparent from the above that the reasons as set out in the impugned order were not the reasons as set out in the SCN. Further, the SCN also did not propose cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration with retrospective effect from 11.09.2017. 9. The petitioner filed an appeal aga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 in Ramesh Chander taking note of the contours of Section 29 had held:- "1-5..... 6. Neither the show cause notice, nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation. In fact, in our view, order dated 13.07.2022 does not qualify as an order of cancellation of registration. 7-8...... 9. In terms of Section 29(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the proper officer may cancel t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r dated 15.12.2021 passed on the Show Cause Notice dated 04.09.2021 does not give any reasons for cancellation. It, however, states that the registration is liable to be cancelled for the following reason "whereas no reply to the show cause notice has been submitted". However, the said order in itself is contradictory. The order states "reference to your reply dated 15.12.2021 in response to the notice to show cause dated 04.09.2021" and the reason stated for the cancellation is "whereas no reply to notice show cause has been submitted". The order further states that effective date of cancellation of registration is 01.07.2017 i.e., a retrospective date. 6. Neither the show cause notice, nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation. In fact, in our view, order dated 15.12.2021 does not qualify as an order of cancellation of registration. On one hand, it states that the registration is liable to be cancelled and on the other, in the 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 o....