Neelam Tripathi Vs State of U.P. And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court)
The petitioner challenged the order dated 11 July 2023 passed by the Proper Officer cancelling her GST registration and the subsequent appellate order dated 11 February 2024 upholding the cancellation. The petitioner contended that her previous counsel, without obtaining her consent, had submitted an application in Form GST REG-16 for voluntary cancellation of the registration. She argued that the cancellation was effected without following the mandatory procedure under Rule 22(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, which requires issuance of a notice in Form GST REG-17 before cancellation. It was submitted that she came to know about the cancellation only after engaging another lawyer, and upon learning of it, she filed an appeal which was dismissed without due consideration of the facts and records.
The petitioner further asserted that the State authorities themselves admitted in paragraph 8 of their counter affidavit that no notice in Form REG-17 had been issued before accepting the application for cancellation. Hence, the cancellation order was in violation of the mandatory provisions of Rule 22(1). It was contended that once this procedural lapse was admitted, the cancellation based on the so-called voluntary surrender by the previous lawyer could not be sustained in law.
