Case Law Details
Cuthbert Oceans LLP Vs Superintendent of CGST Range 109 Division Rohini (Delhi High Court)
Introduction: In the case between Cuthbert Oceans LLP and the Superintendent of CGST Range 109 Division Rohini, the Delhi High Court addressed the validity of the cancellation of GST registration on mere grounds of alleged fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts.
Analysis: The crux of the matter was the issuance of a show-cause notice by the respondent to Cuthbert Oceans LLP, proposing the cancellation of their GST registration based solely on allegations of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts without concrete evidence. The notice lacked specifics, making it hard for the petitioner to understand and respond adequately.
Despite a late response by the petitioner questioning the legitimacy of these allegations, the respondent went ahead to cancel the GST registration. The cancellation was done retrospectively, and the order itself lacked clear reasons, rendering the action against Cuthbert Oceans LLP seemingly arbitrary.
The High Court, in its analysis, emphasized the importance of presenting clear allegations in any show-cause notice to allow the accused party an opportunity for an informed response. Mere blanket statements of fraud or suppression of facts, without clear specifics, are not only contrary to the principles of natural justice but also insufficient grounds for drastic actions like cancelling a GST registration.
Conclusion: The Delhi High Court set aside both the show-cause notice and the subsequent cancellation order due to their vagueness and lack of substance. This decision underscores the significance of due process and the necessity for clarity and transparency in legal actions, ensuring that entities are not penalized based on unfounded or vague allegations.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Issue notice.
2. Harpreet Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent accepts notice.
3. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the show-cause notice dated 09.05.2023 (hereafter ‘the impugned show-cause notice’) calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why its registration should not be cancelled, as well as the order dated 29.05.2023 (hereafter ‘the impugned order’) passed pursuant to the impugned show-cause notice.
4. The respondent issued the impugned show-cause notice proposing to cancel the petitioner’s registration for the following reasons:
“Section 29(2)(e)-registration obtained by means of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts”
5. Apart from the aforesaid reason, the impugned show-cause notice did not disclose any other reason or particulars for proposing the adverse action against the petitioner. The petitioner was called upon to furnish a reply to the impugned show-cause within a period of seven days from the date of service of the impugned show-cause notice; it further directed the petitioner to appear before the respondent on 11.05.2023 at 01:00 PM.
6. The petitioner filed a response to the said show-cause notice albeit belatedly – after the respondent had passed the impugned order cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration.
7. As is apparent from the above, the impugned show-cause notice was bereft of any particulars and it is difficult to accept that the said show-cause notice could elicit any meaningful response. It is trite law that a show-cause notice must set out the allegation in order to enable the noticee to respond to the same. Merely making the bald statement that the registration was obtained by fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts without alluding to any such misstatement or the allegedly suppressed facts, provides no clue to the noticee as to the allegation against him.
8. The petitioner’s response to the impugned show-cause notice (although sent belatedly) indicates that the petitioner has referred to the transactions carried out by him and had quizzed the respondent; “So what is fraud in this transaction?”. This question resonates with us as well.
9. Clearly, the impugned show-cause notice cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
10. The impugned order cancelling the petitioner’s registration is equally cryptic. The said order is set out below: –
“Form GST REG-19
[See Rule 22(3)]
Reference Number: ZA070523228704L
Date 29/05/2023
To
CUTHBERT OCEANS LLP
Unit No 111, Aggarwal City Square, District Centre Manglam Place, New
Delhi, North West Delhi, Delhi, 110085
GSTIN/UIN: 07AAPFC1389P1ZO
Application Reference Number (ARN): AA070523029624B
Order for Cancellation of Registration
This has reference to show cause notice issued dated 09/05/2023.
The effective date of cancellation of your registration is 07/02/2020
3. It may be noted that a registered person furnishing return under subsection (1) of section 39 of the CGST, 2017 is require to furnish a final return in FORM GSTR-10 within three months of the date of this order.
4. You are required to furnish all your pending returns.
5. It may be noted that the cancellation of registration shall not affect the liability to pay tax and other dues under this Act or to discharge any obligation under this Act or the rules made thereunder for any period to the date of cancellation whether or not such tax and other dues are determined before or after the date of cancellation.
Place: RANGE – 109
Date: 29/05/2023”
11. Harpreet Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent is also unable to shed any light on the reasons why the petitioner’s registration was cancelled, and that too retrospectively. The impugned order is not informed by reason.
12. Although the impugned order is an appealable order, but considering that this is a clear case of violation of the principles of natural justice, we have considered it apposite to entertain the present petition.
13. In view of the above, the impugned show-cause notice as well as the impugned order are set aside.
14. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
