In absence of indication of grounds on which the registration of the petitioner was liable to be cancelled or the alleged breaches committed by the petitioner which was likely to lead to the cancellation of the registration, the action of the Superintendent of Taxes failed the minimum requirement of natural justice. In the result, order of cancellation of the petitioner’s registration is set aside.
Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Cancellation of Registration –-- The petitioner challenged an order dated 23.04.2021 passed by the Superintendent of Taxes cancelling the petitioner’s registration. The petitioner is engaged in the business of providing goods on rental basis to its customers across the country and for this the petitioner enters into a rental agreement with the customers and provides capital goods and machinery to such customers on lease. The petitioner replied to the SCN dated 06.12.2020 vide letter dated 16.01.2021. On 23.04.2021, the Superintendent of Taxes passed the impugned order and cancelled the petitioner’s registration effective from 01.07.2017. The court observed that the Superintendent has picked up this notice from the printed proforma prescribed under the rules and which provisions of the GST Act or the Rules were not complied and non-compliance of which was likely to result into cancellation of registration of the petitioner was not specified in the notice at all.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the impugned orders dated 23.04.2021. Further set aside the demand confirmed under order dated 23.04.2021 on the ground that the petitioner’s registration has been cancelled.
In absence of indication of grounds on which the registration of the petitioner was liable to be cancelled or the alleged breaches committed by the petitioner which was likely to lead to the cancellation of the registration, the action of the Superintendent of Taxes failed the minimum requirement of natural justice. In the result, order of cancellation of the petitioner’s registration is set aside.
Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Cancellation of Registration –-- The petitioner challenged an order dated 23.04.2021 passed by the Superintendent of Taxes cancelling the petitioner’s registration. The petitioner is engaged in the business of providing goods on rental basis to its customers across the country and for this the petitioner enters into a rental agreement with the customers and provides capital goods and machinery to such customers on lease. The petitioner replied to the SCN dated 06.12.2020 vide letter dated 16.01.2021. On 23.04.2021, the Superintendent of Taxes passed the impugned order and cancelled the petitioner’s registration effective from 01.07.2017. The court observed that the Superintendent has picked up this notice from the printed proforma prescribed under the rules and which provisions of the GST Act or the Rules were not complied and non-compliance of which was likely to result into cancellation of registration of the petitioner was not specified in the notice at all.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the impugned orders dated 23.04.2021. Further set aside the demand confirmed under order dated 23.04.2021 on the ground that the petitioner’s registration has been cancelled.