Case Law Details
Anilkumar Madhusudhanan Vs Superintendent (Kerala High Court)
Introduction: In a recent development, Anilkumar Madhusudhanan contested the cancellation of his GST registration in the Kerala High Court. The petitioner received an order from the 1st respondent dated 05.10.2023, prompting this legal challenge. This article explores the grounds for cancellation, the petitioner’s response, and the court’s subsequent decision.
Detailed Analysis: The crux of the matter lies in Section 29 of the CGST/SGST Act 2017, which empowers the competent authority to cancel or suspend GST registration under specific circumstances. The petitioner, in this case, faced allegations under Section 29(2)(e) – registration obtained by means of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts.
However, the show cause notice and the subsequent order lacked specificity regarding the nature of fraud or misstatement involved. The court found the order to be a non-speaking order, rendering it legally unsustainable. Section 29 emphasizes the importance of providing an opportunity for the accused to be heard before canceling registration, a procedure not adhered to in this instance.
The court, in its judgment, emphasized the need for a reasoned order and directed the matter to be re-examined by the 1st respondent. The petitioner is instructed to present his case before the 1st respondent on 01.12.2023.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
