Since the order impugned apparently suffers from the violation of a statutory provisions of non-providing of any opportunity as contemplated under Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Act, the impugned order is quashed.
Section 29 of CGST Act, 2017— Registration ----- The petitioner submitted that once he himself as a partner of a partnership firm has submitted an application for cancellation of his registration, in that eventuality, under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 22 of the Rules, the decision on the application submitted for the cancellation of the registration was required to be taken by respondent within a period of 30 days. In case, if no decision is taken, within a period of 30 days, the respondent becomes functus officio, to pass any order on the application which was submitted by the person concerned for cancellation of the registration and hence, any subsequent cancellation of registration after the expiry of the aforesaid period would be without jurisdiction. The court observed that the learned counsel for the parties agreed that because the order impugned apparently suffers from the violation of a statutory provisions of non-providing of any opportunity as contemplated under Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Act.
Held that—The Hon’ble High Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order. Further, remitted the matter to the respondent to take an appropriate action, only after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of 30 days.
Since the order impugned apparently suffers from the violation of a statutory provisions of non-providing of any opportunity as contemplated under Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Act, the impugned order is quashed.
Section 29 of CGST Act, 2017— Registration ----- The petitioner submitted that once he himself as a partner of a partnership firm has submitted an application for cancellation of his registration, in that eventuality, under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 22 of the Rules, the decision on the application submitted for the cancellation of the registration was required to be taken by respondent within a period of 30 days. In case, if no decision is taken, within a period of 30 days, the respondent becomes functus officio, to pass any order on the application which was submitted by the person concerned for cancellation of the registration and hence, any subsequent cancellation of registration after the expiry of the aforesaid period would be without jurisdiction. The court observed that the learned counsel for the parties agreed that because the order impugned apparently suffers from the violation of a statutory provisions of non-providing of any opportunity as contemplated under Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Act.
Held that—The Hon’ble High Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order. Further, remitted the matter to the respondent to take an appropriate action, only after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of 30 days.