Case Law Details
PAV Warehouse Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
In the case of PAV Warehouse vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) at the Madras High Court, the petitioner contests the cancellation of their GST registration. The petitioner argues that the show cause notice lacked clarity regarding the alleged non-compliance with GST statutes.
Background: The petitioner, a registered person under applicable GST statutes, received a show cause notice alleging non-compliance with unspecified provisions of the GST Act. The petitioner replied to the notice, highlighting the lack of clarity in identifying the alleged non-compliance. However, the registration was canceled despite the petitioner’s response.
Legal Argument: The petitioner’s counsel argues that both the show cause notice and the cancellation order suffer from lack of clarity and non-application of mind. The absence of specific provisions in the show cause notice made it impossible for the petitioner to provide a meaningful response. Moreover, the cancellation order failed to provide adequate reasons for the decision.
Court’s Decision: The court concurs with the petitioner’s contention that the show cause notice and the cancellation order lacked clarity and failed to specify the provisions allegedly violated. Consequently, the court quashes the cancellation order and directs the restoration of the petitioner’s registration. However, the court clarifies that the authorities are free to initiate proceedings for cancellation of registration in case of actual non-compliance, provided it is done in accordance with the law.
Conclusion: The judgment in PAV Warehouse vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) emphasizes the importance of clarity and specificity in show cause notices and cancellation orders under the GST Act. The court’s decision to quash the cancellation order provides relief to the petitioner, highlighting the necessity for due process and proper reasoning in administrative actions related to GST registration.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The petitioner challenges an order of cancellation of GST registration. The petitioner states that he was a registered person under applicable GST statutes and that he received a show cause notice dated 29.12.2022 alleging non-compliance of specified provisions in the GST Act.
2. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice on 09.02.2023. In the reply, the petitioner pointed out that the show cause notice did not make reference to any specific provision of applicable GST statutes and that the petitioner is unable to understand the nature of non-compliance from the show cause notice. The impugned order of cancellation was issued thereafter on 17.02.2023.
3. By referring to the show cause notice and the impugned order of cancellation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both these documents are vitiated by lack of clarity and non-application of mind. Therefore, he submits that the order of cancellation is liable to be quashed and the registration restored as a consequence.
4. At the time of admission, learned Government Advocate, had requested for time to obtain instructions as to whether any document was enclosed with the show cause notice. At the hearing today, she confirms that no document was enclosed with the show cause notice.
5. The operative portion of the show cause notice is as under:
“1. Non compliance of any specified provisions in the GST Act or the Rules made thereunder as may be prescribed.”
The operative portion of the impugned cancellation order is as under:
“This has reference to your reply dated 09/02/2023 in response to the notice to show cause dated 29/12/2023
Whereas no reply to notice show cause has been submitted;
Whereas on the day fixed for hearing you did not appear;
The effective date of cancellation of your registration is 17/02/2023”
6. The show cause notice does not indicate as to which provisions of the applicable GST statutes were not complied with by the petitioner. In those circumstances, as correctly pointed out by the petitioner in reply dated 09.02.2023, it was not possible for the petitioner to show cause in response. The order of cancellation also contains no reasons except for the contradictory statements referring to the reply dated 09.02.2023 and thereafter stating that no reply was submitted. Therefore, the impugned order of cancellation is unsustainable.
7. Hence, the impugned order of cancellation is quashed and, as a corollary, the first respondent is directed to restore the registration of the petitioner forthwith. It is made clear that it is open to the respondents to initiate proceedings, including for cancellation of registration, in case of non-compliance, in accordance with law.
8. W.P.N.2393 of 2024 is allowed with the above directions. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
Author Bio
