Case Law Details
Maa Jhandewali Traders Vs Principal Commissioner of Goods And Service Tax North Delhi (Delhi High Court)
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court addressed the petition filed by Maa Jhandewali Traders against the cancellation of their GST registration by the Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax North Delhi. The court’s decision, rendered on the backdrop of procedural lapses and the need for due process, has implications for GST compliance and enforcement practices.
Background of the Dispute: The contention arose from the GST registration cancellation order dated 21.07.2023, based on allegations of mis-statement or suppression of facts by Maa Jhandewali Traders. The petitioner challenged the show cause notice’s lack of specifics regarding the alleged fraud, leading to the impugned cancellation order.
Procedural Aspects: The Delhi High Court identified procedural irregularities in the issuance and content of the show cause notice, notably the absence of detailed allegations and the non-disclosure of the issuing officer’s name or designation. Despite the respondent’s claim that detailed reasons were available on the GST portal, the petitioner contested this, stating no further information was provided beyond the initial notice.
Court’s Decision: The Court found merit in the petitioner’s arguments, recognizing the need for a detailed and specific show cause notice to enable an adequate response. However, given that the petitioner had engaged with the process by filing a preliminary reply and an application for revocation, the Court decided against outright dismissal of the show cause notice. Instead, it set aside the cancellation order, granting the petitioner one week to submit a detailed response and directing the authority to re-adjudicate the matter within 30 days, with provisions for a personal hearing and potential re-inspection of the premises.
Conclusion: This judgment underscores the judiciary’s role in upholding procedural fairness and the principle of natural justice in administrative actions, including GST registration cancellations. By setting aside the cancellation order and allowing for a more comprehensive response process, the Delhi High Court has reaffirmed the importance of specificity in show cause notices and the right to a fair hearing. The case serves as a reminder for both tax authorities and taxpayers of the critical balance between enforcement and adherence to due process.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Petitioner seeks restoration of the GST registration of the petitioner that has been cancelled by order dated 21.07.2023.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the show cause notice dated 28.06.2023 which led to the impugned cancellation order did not contain the very basic details. He submits that the show cause notice was issued on the ground that the registration was obtained by mis-statement or suppression of facts. He submits that the show cause notice does not contain any specifics of the alleged fraud, misstatement or suppression. He submits that the show cause notice required the petitioner to appear before the signatory of the notice, however, neither any name nor designation of the officer was disclosed in the show cause notice.
3. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final disposal today.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the show cause notice is uploaded on the portal which is accessible by the tax-payers. He submits that on the portal all information is also uploaded with regard to the detailed reasons, etc. He submits that the action was taken because the Deputy Commissioner (AE) CGST, Delhi (North) had informed that the petitioner firm was non-existent at the subject He submits that all this information was available on the portal and accessible to the tax-payers.
5. This is disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner who submits that apart from the show cause notice which is being annexed as Annexure-P1, there was no other information available on the portal.
6. Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner had replied to the show cause notice and requested for 4-5 days’ time to respond to the show cause notice and had stated that the petitioner is unable to personally attend being out of station.
7. We also notice that after this response, there was no further response submitted by the petitioner.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent has produced a screenshot of the portal accessible by the concerned Inspector wherein detailed reason has been mentioned. He has also produced a copy of the report received from the Deputy Commissioner (AE) CGST. Both these documents are taken on record.
9. In contrast, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a copy of the rent agreement dated 27.12.2022 in respect of the subject property.
10. We notice that the petitioner has not filed a detailed response to the show cause notice.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that petitioner has already filed an application for revocation of the cancellation and the period prescribed for disposal of the same is 30 days which is yet to lapse.
12. Normally, we would have set aside the show cause notice because of the infirmities pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner. However, in the facts of the present case since petitioner has responded to the show cause notice and filed a reply which is not in commensurate with the reasons mentioned for the cancellation, we are of the view that an opportunity needs to be granted to the petitioner to file a detailed response to the show cause notice and thereafter for the authorities to re-adjudicate the show cause notice.
13. In view of the above, the cancellation order dated 21.07.2023 is set aside. Petitioner is granted one week’s time to file a detailed response to the show cause notice. Thereafter, the authority shall dispose of the show cause notice within a period of 30 days. Petitioner shall also be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing.
14. It would be open to the competent authority to have a fresh inspection carried out of the subject property, if so required.
15. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
16. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor commented upon the merits of the contention of either party. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.
Author Bio
