In the instant case, the mandatory requirement of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Act has not been complied with. Accordingly the order rejecting the application for revocation of cancellation, of the authority is questionable.
Section 29, 30 of the CGST Act, 2017—Registration ---The petitioner sought directions for quashing the impugned order dated 19.8.2019 as well as impugned order dated 24.3.2021 passed in Appeal. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 31.8.2019 informing him that its registration is liable to be cancelled and vide order dated 18.9.2019, the registration of the petitioner was cancelled, the effective date of cancellation of registration being 31/8/2019. The petitioner submitted that without fixing any date or time for hearing and without waiting for any reply, the respondent vide order dated 30/01/2021, rejected the application for revocation of cancellation of registration on the ground that the petitioner had not replied to the notice dated 2.1.2021 within the time specified therein. Further, the Appellate authority rejected the appeal on the ground that the application for revocation has been filed after 30 days, which is a clear violation of Section 30 and Rule 23. The court observed that in the SCN for rejection of the application for revocation of cancellation of registration, neither the period of days is specified to furnish its reply nor time for personal hearing has been mentioned. As such the mandatory requirement of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Act has not been complied with.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the petition and set aside the order dated 24.3.2021 passed by the appellate authority and remitted the case to take a fresh decision on the appeal of the petitioner in accordance with law.
In the instant case, the mandatory requirement of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Act has not been complied with. Accordingly the order rejecting the application for revocation of cancellation, of the authority is questionable.
Section 29, 30 of the CGST Act, 2017—Registration ---The petitioner sought directions for quashing the impugned order dated 19.8.2019 as well as impugned order dated 24.3.2021 passed in Appeal. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 31.8.2019 informing him that its registration is liable to be cancelled and vide order dated 18.9.2019, the registration of the petitioner was cancelled, the effective date of cancellation of registration being 31/8/2019. The petitioner submitted that without fixing any date or time for hearing and without waiting for any reply, the respondent vide order dated 30/01/2021, rejected the application for revocation of cancellation of registration on the ground that the petitioner had not replied to the notice dated 2.1.2021 within the time specified therein. Further, the Appellate authority rejected the appeal on the ground that the application for revocation has been filed after 30 days, which is a clear violation of Section 30 and Rule 23. The court observed that in the SCN for rejection of the application for revocation of cancellation of registration, neither the period of days is specified to furnish its reply nor time for personal hearing has been mentioned. As such the mandatory requirement of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Act has not been complied with.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the petition and set aside the order dated 24.3.2021 passed by the appellate authority and remitted the case to take a fresh decision on the appeal of the petitioner in accordance with law.