27-Sep-2019: A Survey was conducted at the petitioner's business place. The business place of the firm was not found as disclosed in the registration certificate
01-Dec-2020: Consequently, the Proper Officer cancelled the petitioner's GST registration declaring his regd. "Bogus"
28-Jan-2021: Petitioner filled GST Revocation application contesting the cancellation of the GST registration.
19-Mar-2021: The revocation application was rejected by the Proper Officer.
26-Apr-2021: Subsequently, a notice in Form GST REG – 23 was received by the petitioner, asking to show cause as to why the rejection of application for revocation of cancellation of registration should not be passed.
My Comment: When they had already rejected revocation application there is no reason to send this REG-23. This should had been issued before rejecting application.
14-Oct-2022: Petitioner filed an appeal, again rejection of revocation, which was also rejected.
The petitioner then filed a writ petition challenging these orders, arguing that they had been passed in contravention of the provisions of the Act & Rules and that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner.
Issue of REG-23 in April'21 itself proves this.
The petitioner further alleged that the conditions mentioned in section 29(2) of the UP GST Act were not complied with before canceling the registration.
High Court held that the registration of the petitioner was cancelled on the basis of the presumption that the firm is bogus since the disclosed business place was not found.
The Court held that the cancellation of the registration, rejection of the revocation application, and dismissal of the appeal cannot be sustained, as they were not in compliance with Section 29(2) of the Act which mandates the existence of specific conditions and
the provision of an opportunity for hearing before cancellation of registration. Therefore, these orders were quashed.
The writ petition was allowed and the respondent was given the liberty to issue a fresh notice on any specific ground mentioned under section 29(2) of the GST Act, which, if initiated, will be decided on its own merit without being prejudiced by any observation made in the order.
Title: Star Metal Company vs Additional Commissioner Grade-2
Court: Allahabad High Court
Citation: Writ Tax No. - 397 of 2023
Dated: 19-May-2023
Neutral Citation: 2023:AHC:110056
Abhishek Raja "Ram"
@abhishekrajaram
MEC, STBA Delhi || Speaker and Author on GST. Life dedicated towards Tax and Economic Reforms & Simplification