The Delhi High Court, in a recent ruling, directed the restoration of the application of the GST cancellation order as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard at the initial stage of the proceedings.
In this case, the assessee, Alufab Ores Private Limited, has been registered with the GST authorities. Later on, it was discovered that the petitioner was not operating at its primary location. In such a circumstance, the proper officer issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 06.09.2022 requiring the petitioner to show cause why its GST registration should not be canceled.
Get a Copy of Supreme Court Judgments on GST with Free E-Book Access, Click here
The petitioner was instructed to file a response within seven working days of receiving the impugned SCN, as well as to appear before the appropriate officer on a specified date and time.
In addition, the petitioner’s GST registration was suspended effective the date of the impugned SCN.
However, the petitioner did not reply to the above SCN. As a result, the petitioner’s GST registration was revoked with retrospective effect on November 6, 2021, in accordance with the impugned cancellation order issued by the proper officer. The above cancellation order also indicated that no tax liability was determined as payable by the petitioner.
An application was filed by the petitioner for the revocation or cancellation of GST. After that, although an opportunity was provided to the petitioner to appear before the proper officer, the petitioner did not avail the opportunity, and hence his request for the revocation of the cancellation order was rejected.
Although the petitioner approached the appellate authority, it was rejected by the appellate authority as it was beyond the period of limitation.
And later on, the petitioner approached the HC for relief.
Get a Copy of Supreme Court Judgments on GST with Free E-Book Access, Click here
The counsel on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the change in the principal place of business of amended in the Certificate of Registration. But the proper officer wasn’t aware of the same.
He further argued that because the impugned SCN failed to include a time or date for the petitioner to be present for a personal hearing, the petitioner was not given the opportunity to have a hearing during the first stage.
The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the delay in availing the appellate remedies was due to the death of the father of one of the directors.
The bench considered the above-mentioned mitigating circumstances and held that the petitioner may be given an opportunity to submit before the pepper officer that the business was in existence at the material time and continues to be in existence.
The bench, comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Sachin Datta, directed to restore the petitioner’s application for revocation of the order canceling the GST registration before the proper officer, as the bench noted that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to be heard at the threshold stage as the impugned SCN did not specify the date and time on which the personal hearing was to be scheduled.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
