Order falls short of principle of natural of justice as admittedly SIB report, which is foundation was never supplied to petitioner, no hearing was granted to petitioner under section 75(4) of Act
Issue involved Whether department is enjoined to issue a notice under subsection 3 of Section 61 of CGST Act, 2017 once returns have been submitted by assessee before initiating action under Section 74 or not?
GST: Petitioner urged that had goods been perishable it ought to have sold in terms of rules 141(2) within 15 days of seizure and as it has not been sold, goods ought to be treated as non-perishable.
HC held that penalty under Section 129(1)(b) of the UPGST Act was unjustified and untenable since the owner has come forward for payment of penalty.
Once the documents clearly establish the name of the consignor, who is a registered dealer in the State, the proceedings should have been initiated against the owner of the firm instead of the driver, so as to enable him to respond to the notice.
No reason ascribed for cancellation of GST registration. Such order without any application of mind and is set aside.
If petitioner is either a consignor or a consignee, he has to be treated as a owner of goods & provisions of Section 129(1)(b) not invokable
Section 75(4) of UPGST Act makes it mandatory to grant opportunity of hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated.
Order does not assign any reason for cancelling GST registration and is passed only on the ground that reply to show cause notice is not given. Non-submission of reply to SCN cannot be a ground for cancellation of GST registration.
GST registration cannot be cancelled for allegedly being a bogus firm as it is not a ground enumerated under Section 29(2) of GST Act
