Case Law Details
Pratibha-Mosinzhstroi Consortium Vs Commissioner of CGST (Delhi High Court)
High Court held that Impugned order cannot cancelling GST Registration of Appellant be sustained for the following reasons which proves that entire Proceedings was Legally Flawed
(i) Firstly, the SCN dated 08.07.2021 gave no clue whatsoever, as to what was the infraction committed by the petitioner-consortium, and hence the case/allegation it had to meet.
(ii) Secondly, although inspection of PIL’s premises was carried out on 05.07.2021, it did not find mention in the SCN dated 08.07.2021. Besides this, no notice of physical inspection was given. The concerned authority, having exercised this option under Rule 25 of the CGST Rules, 2017, it had to give notice. [See judgement dated 26.04.2022, passed in W.P (C) 8451/2021, titled Micro Focus Software Solutions India Pvt Ltd. vs. Union of India & Anr; judgement dated 26.08.2022, passed in W.P (C) 10408/2022, titled Curil Tradex Pvt. Ltd. vs The Commissioner, Delhi Goods and Service Tax & Anr.]
(iii) Thirdly, another SCN dated 17.11.2021 was issued, which is not contemplated under the CGST Act, 2017 [in short “Act”].
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
