Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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