Case Law Details
MD Mustafa Raza Vs Superintendent Range 21 Central Goods And Service Tax & Anr (Delhi High Court)
In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court addressed the case of MD Mustafa Raza versus Superintendent Range 21 Central Goods and Service Tax & Anr, concerning the retrospective cancellation of GST registration and subsequent application for revocation. The court’s directive highlights the importance of procedural fairness in administrative actions.
The petitioner challenged an order dated 06.01.2024, which retrospectively canceled their GST registration effective from 01.03.2023. The cancellation was based on a show-cause notice issued on 11.10.2023, citing the failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months. However, the notice lacked specific reasons and failed to inform the petitioner about the retrospective cancellation possibility, depriving them of the opportunity to contest it.
The impugned order provided no rationale for the retrospective cancellation, merely referring to the show-cause notice without further elaboration. Consequently, the petitioner filed an application for revocation, explaining the delay in filing returns due to personal reasons, including the demise of their father.
During proceedings, the petitioner appeared before the Assistant Commissioner, responding to queries raised. However, the decision on the revocation application was pending. Upon considering both parties’ submissions, the court disposed of the petition, directing the Proper Officer to decide on the revocation application within two weeks.
It’s essential to note that the court refrained from commenting on the merits of the case, preserving the parties’ rights and contentions.
This ruling underscores the significance of transparency and due process in administrative actions, ensuring fair treatment and safeguarding individuals’ rights in matters concerning tax regulations.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court’s directive in the case of MD Mustafa Raza Vs Superintendent Range 21 Central Goods And Service Tax & Anr emphasizes the need for procedural integrity and timely resolution of administrative matters, particularly in the realm of taxation.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 06.01.2024, whereby the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled retrospectively with effect from 01.03.2023 and seeks direction to the respondent to allow the application of the petitioner for revocation of cancellation of registration dated 16.01.2024.
2. Show Cause Notice dated 11.10.2023 was issued to Petitioner seeking to cancel its registration. Though the notice does not specify any cogent reason, it merely states “returns furnished by you under section 39 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017” along with an observation stating, “Failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months”. Further, the said Show Cause Notice also does not put the petitioner to notice that the registration is liable to be cancelled retrospectively. Accordingly, the petitioner had no opportunity to even object to the retrospective cancellation of the registration.
3. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 06.01.2024 passed on the Show Cause Notice does not give any reasons for cancellation. It merely states “reference to show cause notice issued dated 11/10/2023” and subsequently states “the effective date of cancellation of your registration is 01/03/2023”. The order states that the effective date of cancellation of registration is 01.03.2023 i.e., a retrospective date. There is no material on record to show as to why the registration is sought to be cancelled retrospectively.
4. Pursuant to impugned order dated 06.01.2024, Petitioner had filed an application for revocation of cancellation of registration dated 16.01.2024 on the ground “Due to non filling of return you have cancelled my GST registration. But reason behind my this delay is my father expired during this period and I also changed my accountant whose delayed my return”
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner passed away on 28.09.2023 and he had gone to his native village to perform his father’s last rituals. Therefore, he had not filed his returns on time.
6. Pursuant to order dated 06.01.2024, we are informed that petitioner had appeared before the Assistant Commissioner on the date and time fixed in support of his application seeking revocation of the cancellation of registration.
7. Learned counsel for respondent submits that certain queries have been raised which have been responded by the petitioner and accordingly no decision on the application for revocation has been taken.
8. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of directing the Proper Officer to decide the application of the petitioner seeking revocation within a period of two weeks from today.
9. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor commented upon the merits and contentions of the either party. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.
10. Petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
Author Bio
