The case addressed whether cancellation for non-filing of returns could be reversed. The court allowed revocation subject to filing returns and payment of tax, interest, and penalty.
The court examined whether confiscation under GST law can be ordered without hearing the affected party. It held that absence of personal hearing violates statutory requirements, making the order invalid.
The Court held that filing NIL returns does not fall within the grounds specified under Section 29(2) of the GST Act. As a result, the cancellation order and show cause notice were declared legally unsustainable.
The court declined to hear the GST dispute as an appeal remedy existed. It held that pre-deposit requirements cannot justify bypassing statutory remedies.
The Court held that service of notice solely through the GST portal is not valid where the taxpayer is not monitoring it. It set aside the ex-parte assessment for lack of proper service.
The Uttarakhand High Court held that service of notice solely through the GST portal is invalid when the taxpayer’s registration has already been cancelled. Authorities must use other modes of service under Section 169.
The court found that the statutory requirement for service of notice was not met when the department relied only on portal-based communication after cancellation of registration.
The case addressed cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns. The High Court allowed the taxpayer to seek revocation by filing pending returns and paying dues.
The High Court examined whether a personal hearing could be fixed before the last date for filing a reply to a GST show cause notice. It held that such a procedure violates the statutory scheme and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
Uttarakhand High Court held that order of the Competent Authority granting sanction or approval or refusing to grant sanction or approval u/s 151 of the Income Tax Act of 1961 is neither a revisable order, nor an appealable order.
