Case Law Details
Gulab Nagar Vs Assistant Commissioner (Delhi High Court)
The recent case of Gulab Nagar v. Assistant Commissioner [W.P No. 3383 of 2024 dated March 06, 2024] before the Delhi High Court sheds light on the consequences of erroneous field visit reports leading to the retrospective cancellation of GST registration. This article explores the case details, implications, and the court’s ruling. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition thereby holding that, revocation application filed by the Assessee has to be taken into consideration in case where the GST Registration has been cancelled by the Revenue Department based on incorrect field visit report.
Facts:
Gulab Nagar (“the Petitioner”) filed a writ petition against order dated September 01, 2023 (“the Impugned Order”) passed by the Revenue Department (“the Respondent”) wherein the Petitioner GST registration has been cancelled retrospectively with effect from March 31, 2022, on the ground that Petitioner was not functioning from the address provided to GST authorities.
Held:
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P No. 3383 of 2024 held that the entire proceedings of GST Registration cancellation are based on the field visit report which is not in relation to the Petitioner for which revocation application has been filed by the Petitioner. The Hon’ble High Court thereafter directed the Respondent to take into consideration the revocation application filed by the Petitioner.
Relevant Provision:
Section 30 of the CGST Act:
“Section 30: Revocation of cancellation of Registration
(1) Subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, any registered person, whose registration is cancelled by the proper officer on his own motion, may apply to such officer for revocation of cancellation of the registration in such manner, within such time and subject to such conditions and restrictions, as may be prescribed.
(2) The proper officer may, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed, by order, either revoke cancellation of the registration or reject the application:
Provided that the application for revocation of cancellation of registration shall not be rejected unless the applicant has been given an opportunity of being heard.”
Conclusion: The ruling in Gulab Nagar v. Assistant Commissioner by the Delhi High Court serves as a safeguard against arbitrary cancellations of GST registration based on erroneous field visit reports. By directing the consideration of revocation petitions and acknowledging the petitioner’s contention of an incorrect report, the court reaffirms procedural fairness and the right to a fair hearing. This judgment sets a precedent for future cases, emphasizing the importance of due process and administrative accountability in GST matters.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 01,09.2023, whereby the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled retrospectively with effect from 31.03 .2022.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that registration has been cancelled on alleged ground that petitioner was not found functioning from the given address. He submits that reliance has been placed on a Field Visit Report dated 29.08.2023, which report does not pertain to the petitioner and pertains to some other entity at a different address. He submits that he has already filed a revocation petition and candidly stated that in case a fresh field visit is required, petitioner would be willing to accept the same.
3. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for respondents, who submits that the revocation petition filed by the petitioner seeking revocation of the cancellation shall be disposed of within a period of two weeks from today.
4. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of directing the proper officer to consider the revocation petition filed by the petitioner in accordance with law as also the contention of the petitioner that an incorrect Field Visit Report has been relied upon. The Competent Authority shall pass an order within a period of two weeks from today. Needless to state, it will be open to the petitioner to avail of such further remedy as may be permissible in law if aggrieved by any order passed by the Competent Authority.
5. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
***
(Author can be reached at [email protected])
Author Bio
