The order cancelling the petitioner's registration is found to be wholly ex-parte being contrary to the mandatory requirement of the first proviso to Section 29(2) of the Act. The matter is remitted to respondent to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law.
Section 29, 30 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Registration —–The petitioner challenged the order dated 15.7.2020 for cancellation of registration. The respondent counsel submitted that despite the order cancelling the petitioner’s registration, the GST Portal continued to disclose the status of the petitioner firm as active. He further submitted that the petitioner has adequate remedy of appeal against the order dated 30.6.2021. The court observed that the order dated 30.6.2018 was neither served on the petitioner nor given effect to till 15.7.2020. Moreover, the physical copy of the said notice was not served at the relevant time, the order cancelling the petitioner's registration is found to be wholly ex-parte being contrary to the mandatory requirement of the first proviso to Section 29(2) of the Act. Thus, the petitioner's registration was cancelled without issuance of any prior show cause notice.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the order dated 30.6.2018 cancelling the petitioner's registration and remitted the matter to the respondent to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law.
The order cancelling the petitioner's registration is found to be wholly ex-parte being contrary to the mandatory requirement of the first proviso to Section 29(2) of the Act. The matter is remitted to respondent to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law.
Section 29, 30 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Registration —–The petitioner challenged the order dated 15.7.2020 for cancellation of registration. The respondent counsel submitted that despite the order cancelling the petitioner’s registration, the GST Portal continued to disclose the status of the petitioner firm as active. He further submitted that the petitioner has adequate remedy of appeal against the order dated 30.6.2021. The court observed that the order dated 30.6.2018 was neither served on the petitioner nor given effect to till 15.7.2020. Moreover, the physical copy of the said notice was not served at the relevant time, the order cancelling the petitioner's registration is found to be wholly ex-parte being contrary to the mandatory requirement of the first proviso to Section 29(2) of the Act. Thus, the petitioner's registration was cancelled without issuance of any prior show cause notice.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the order dated 30.6.2018 cancelling the petitioner's registration and remitted the matter to the respondent to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law.