Padma Thakuria vs. The Union Of INDIA And 3 Ors

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated April 6, 2022, passed by the Superintendent of Central Goods and Service Tax (Respondent No. 4), cancelling the petitioner's GST registration, was passed without assigning any reason. This demonstrated a total non-application of mind by the quasi-judicial authority. The Court found that the cancellation of registration entails civil consequences for the petitioner, preventing them from carrying out their business. Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned order dated April 6, 2022. The Court directed the Respondent No. 4 to consider and dispose of the reply submitted by the petitioner on March 5, 2022, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within 10 days of receiving a certified copy of the order. The status of the registration was restored to the date of the show cause notice.

Facts

The petitioner, Padma Thakurta, was granted GST registration on May 18, 2018. The petitioner failed to file returns as required by law. A show cause notice was issued on February 2, 2022, proposing cancellation of registration for non-filing of returns under Section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the registration was suspended from that date. The petitioner submitted a reply on March 5, 2022. However, the Superintendent of Central Goods and Service Tax (Respondent No. 4) cancelled the petitioner's GST registration on April 6, 2022, without considering the reply and without assigning any reason. The petitioner claims to have filed returns thereafter. The present writ petition challenges the order of cancellation dated April 6, 2022.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration, passed by the Superintendent of Central Goods and Service Tax (Respondent No. 4) on April 6, 2022, is liable to be set aside for non-application of mind and failure to assign reasons, despite the petitioner submitting a reply to the show cause notice dated February 2, 2022, issued under Section 39 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was passed without considering their reply and without assigning any reasons, indicating a total non-application of mind. The petitioner also stated that they had subsequently filed their returns. The respondents, represented by Mr. SC Keyal, Standing Counsel, CGST, did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the validity of the cancellation order or the consideration of the petitioner's reply.