Case Law Details
Umesh Kumar Vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others (Allahabad High Court)
The purpose of inserting the provision under Rule 23 of GST Rules, 2017 as to service of notice upon the assessee is to provide an opportunity to him to move a revocation application so as to save the registration from being cancelled permanently and his business being hampered.
GST Act and the Rules have been brought so as to see the business is run smoothly and is not hampered by the intricacies of the provisions of the Act. The coordinate Bench of this Court in M/s Ansari Constructions while dealing with Section 29 of the GST Act, 2017 and Rule 23 of Rules, 2017, has held that once the Department has accepted the return and there remains no dues, the Department should not obstruct the business of an assessee.
In the present case, as the petitioner has come with the case that he has deposited the entire tax and has filed return in the year 2021, the said Act having not been denied by the State, the rejection of registration solely on the ground of delay in moving the revocation application, is not sustainable in law. Moreover, the Appellate Authority has not recorded any categorical finding as to the service of notice and merely on the ground that the application was time barred, proceeded to uphold the order of rejection of revocation application.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the orders dated 14.5.2019 and 25.3.2021 passed by the opposite parties are unsustainable in the eye of law and are hereby quashed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
