Madeena Steels Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the writ petition on account of availability of alternative remedy to challenge the order cancelling GST registration.
Facts- Petitioner is a proprietary concern engaged in the business of purchase and sale of iron scrap and petitioner is registered with GST department.
1st respondent issued a show cause notice u/s 29 of SGST Act r/w Rule 21 of CGST Rules, 2017 proposing to cancel the registration of the petitioner on the alleged ground that the suppliers of the goods to the purchaser has availed ITC without actual receipt of goods and indulged in passing on such credit to the petitioner without supply of goods.
Petitioner alleges that 1st respondent passed the impugned order cancelling the registration of the petitioner on untenable grounds and also on the grounds which were not raised in the show cause notice.
Conclusion- In the instant case the petitioner banks upon the violation of principles of natural justice to maintain the writ petition. In this context, a perusal of the show cause notice dated 23.06.2023 shows that the 1st respondent has given required particulars of the non-existent tax payers from whom the petitioner allegedly obtained bogus tax invoices. Therefore, we do not find venom in the contention of the petitioner that the show cause notice is bereft of required particulars and thereby the principles of natural justice were violated.
Admittedly, the petitioner has alternative remedy to challenge the impugned order which he did not avail. Therefore, we does not deserve any order in the writ petition. However, considering that the petitioner’s registration has been cancelled and thereby he cannot continue his business activities, we deem it apposite to give an opportunity to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order either by way of filing a petition U/s 30 of the GST Act or to file an appeal within a reasonable time.
