Failure to File Reply to SCN follows GST Registration Suspension in violation of Rule 80B CGST Rules: Delhi HC Allows Grace Period [Read Order]

The Delhi High Court granted grace period to the petitioner - proprietor who failed to file the reply to the Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) within the time granted, which subsequently followed the suspension of Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) registration in violation of Rule 80B of Central Goods and Services Tax  ( CGST ) Rules, 2017.

The petitioner, M/s Maa Kamakhya through its proprietor, has challenged a SCN issued on 18.09.2023, along with the subsequent suspension of their Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) registration. The petitioner contested the allegations of violating Rule 86B of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, stating that no such violation has occurred.

The petitioner's counsel argues that the show cause notice was based on alleged grounds of Rule 86B violations, a claim vehemently denied by the petitioner. According to the counsel, the petitioner was granted only one week to respond to the notice. However, due to unforeseen exigencies, the reply could not be filed within the stipulated time frame.

In an attempt to comply, the petitioner sought to upload the response on the online portal, but encountered technical difficulties as the portal rejected the submission. Undeterred, the petitioner then tried to physically submit the reply, only to face rejection once again.

The counsel for the respondent submitted that the SCN  is still pending and has not yet been disposed of.

In response to these challenges, the bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has disposed of the petition, allowing the petitioner to file a response to the show cause notice within one week. Following the submission of the reply, the respondent is mandated to dispose of the show cause notice through a detailed and explanatory order within two weeks. Notably, the petitioner will be granted a personal hearing before the final decision on the show cause notice.

The court clarifies that should the petitioner remain dissatisfied with any subsequent order, they retain the right to pursue legal remedies available within the ambit of the law.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

MAA KAMAKHYA vs SALES TAX OFFICER , 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 267 , Priyanka Goel , Rajeev Aggarwal