Case Law Details
Unique Instruments And MFRS. Pvt Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court)
High Court that mere consideration of reply and submissions would not be sufficient and opportunity of personal hearing was to be granted and same would not indicate that the petitioner was present during the hearing of the proceedings leading to cancellation of registration. It is clear as per the proviso to Section 29(2) of KGST Act that there shall not be cancellation without giving the person an opportunity of being heard in light of the statutory mandate and in absence of any material evidence regarding the presence of the petitioner during the proceedings for cancellation of registration the order of cancellation at Annexure-A is set aside.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.04.2019 passed by respondent No.2 cancelling registration of the petitioner in terms of Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘KGST Act’) which order is at Annexure-A (dated 26.02.2019). The petitioner would submit that in terms of Section 29(2) of KGST Act, the proviso would require that the proper officer will not cancel the registration without giving the person an opportunity of being heard. It is submitted that no such opportunity of hearing was afforded. Attention is drawn to the Show Cause Notice at Annexure-C (dated 26.02.2019). It is submitted that as per the Show Cause Notice, the petitioner was called upon to furnish a reply within seven [7] working days. It is further submitted that even in terms of the notice at Annexure-C, there is a requirement for fixing a date for personal hearing which has not been complied in the present matter. It is pointed out that even in the order for cancellation of registration, the only recital is that the reply and submissions of the petitioner has been examined and order is passed. It is submitted that mere consideration of reply and submissions of the petitioner would not be sufficient, but in terms of proviso to Section 29(2) of KGST Act, the opportunity of personal hearing is to be granted. Insofar as the assertion that no opportunity of personal hearing has been granted and that petitioner was not heard during the proceedings relating to cancellation of registration was concluded, the counsel for the revenue is unable to controvert such assertion.
2. Though the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the order of cancellation observes that the reply and submissions of the petitioner has been examined at the time of hearing that by itself would not indicate that the petitioner was present during the hearing of the proceedings leading to cancellation of registration. It is clear as per the proviso to Section 29(2) of KGST Act that there shall not be cancellation without giving the person an opportunity of being heard in light of the statutory mandate and in absence of any material evidence, presence of the petitioner during the proceedings for cancellation of registration.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
