Case Law Details
B.C. Mohankumar Vs Superintendent of Central Goods & Service Tax (Madras High Court)
Rejection of application for GST registration: HC heold that order in this case is non-speaking, arbitrary and evidently has not taken into account the explanation furnished by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent refers to Rule 9(4), particularly the deployment of the word ‘may’ herein, that according to him, grants discretion to the authority to assign reasons. This submission is only stated to be rejected. Rule 9(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 is extracted below:
‘9. Verification of the application and approval
(4) Where no reply is furnished by the applicant in response to the notice issued under sub-rule (2) or where the proper officer is not satisfied with the clarification, information or documents furnished, he [may], for reasons to be recorded in writing, reject such application and inform the applicant electronically in FORM GST REG-05.’
As the evident, the word ‘may’ only refers to the discretion to reject and not to blatantly violate the principles of natural justice. If the assessing authority is inclined to reject the application, which he is entitled to, he must assign reasons for such objection and adhere to proper procedure, including due process.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
