Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

Comments
Print   |    |  Comment

GST Update No 279 on cancellation of registration on arbitrary basis

GST Update No 279 on cancellation of registration on arbitrary basis

Opinion

Time and again the revenue authorities are bashed by the Hon’ble High Courts on acting frivolously and negligently. There had been various cases in the erstwhile indirect tax regime wherein the cost was imposed on the revenue department for acting arbitrarily as it is often observed that the departmental authorities do not consider the submissions of the taxpayers. Recently, one case was reported on similar issue before the hon’ble ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT in the case of DRS WOOD PRODUCTS V/S STATE OF U.P. wherein the departmental authorities have cancelled the GST registration arbitrarily. The decision imparted in this case is subject matter of discussion of our present update.
The petitioner filed the appeal as on 18.01.2021 against the order wherein the application for revocation of cancellation of registration was rejected. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of Veneer and was granted GST registration. A show cause notice was issued alleging that registration is liable to be cancelled since the taxpayer is non-functioning and non-existing at the principal place of business. Subsequently, order for cancellation of registration was also passed. The petitioner when tried to upload the E-way bill, came to know that the registration of the firm was cancelled and hence applied for revocation of cancellation of registration. It was submitted that the said application is filed within time as prescribed under Section 30 of the Act. However, the application filed was objected by way of issuance of show cause notice. The petitioner further moved an application seeking extension of 15 days for filing reply to the show cause notice due to marriage of daughter of the petitioner. However, no attention was paid to the request of the petitioner and the application for revocation of registration was also rejected alleging that no satisfactory explanation was provided by the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, filed an appeal and submitted that the business was running from the premises under
CA. PRADEEP JAIN
??www.capradeepjain.com??pradeep@capradeepjain.com??5
consideration. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal stating that upon investigation by the departmental officers, it was concluded that no business or activity was undertaken on the property. Further one of the partners was on the phone and did not gave any clear reply. Furthermore, there were no stocks or commercial activity found on the business premises. Moreover, it was recorded in the inspection report that another firm in another name and GSTN was found working from the same spot. Hence, it is an outright example of tax evasion.
The Counsel of the petitioner contended that the initial SCN based on which registration was cancelled was never served upon the petitioner. It was submitted that the appellate authority has erred in dismissing the appeal since the inspection report is of 2020 and inquiry was conducted in 2018 which were neither supplied to the petitioner and nor petitioner was confronted to respond to them. It was argued that none of the grounds as provided under Section 29 of the Act were established against the petitioner. Reference was drawn on to the decision of Apex Court in the case of Oryx Fisheries Private Limited V/s Union of India and Ors. and on Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore V/s Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd and Ors. Further reference was drawn to various rulings of this Court i.e. Apparent Marketing Private Limited V/s State of U.P. & Ors. M/s Ansari Construction V/s Additional Commissioner Central Goods and Service Tax (Appeals) and M/s S.S traders V/s State of U.P. & Ors.
The Counsel of respondent argued that on the grounds of investigation being carried on, it can be stated that on the place of business of firm, no business activity was undertaken and another business firm was working on the same business site as well. The partner of the firm even did not cooperate during the investigation and no reply was submitted by the petitioner. Further, it was argued that the petitioner might have kept the goods at any other place.
The Court held that the show cause notice issued depicts the opaqueness of allegation raised against the petitioner. The show cause notice does not indicate any date as to when the investigation was carried out. Therefore, the vaguely issued SCN is violative of principles of administrative justice. Cancellation of registration is a serious consequence which thereby affects the fundamental
CA. PRADEEP JAIN
??www.capradeepjain.com??pradeep@capradeepjain.com??6
rights of carrying business. The casually issued notice demonstrates that the departmental authorities were not judicially trained since the same is lacking in terms of quasi-judicial fervor since no reasoning is mentioned. The order rejecting the revocation application has taken the matter to the height of arbitrariness since no reasons were recoded in the same. Further, the adjournment request of the petitioner was also not adhered to. The investigation report on which the Appellate Authority relied on was never communicated to the petitioner. Thus, highlighting the arbitrary manner in which quasi-judicial and appellate authorities are working under GST Act. The manner of disposal can neither be appreciated nor accepted. Therefore, the authorities have failed to act in the light and spirit of the GST Act. Furthermore, it was stated that arbitrary exercise of power of cancellation of registration not only affects the business of the petitioner adversely but also the flow of revenue that could have flowed to the department. The action of the authorities is not in line with the principle of ease of doing business. It was therefor held that the registration of the petitioner shall be renewed and directed to State Government to pay the cost to the petitioner of Rs. 50,000/-.
The above decision has proved to be a silver lining for the trade and industry. It is high time that these Judicial Rulings should be taken into consideration by the department before initiating proceedings for cancellation of GST registration which adversely effects the business and revenue flow to the government.

Post a Comment
Department News


Query
 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com