Probin Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 3 Ors

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated December 15, 2023, cancelling the petitioner's GST registration, was passed by a quasi-judicial authority without assigning any reason. This demonstrated a total non-application of mind, rendering the order unsustainable. The Court found that the cancellation of registration has civil consequences for the petitioner, as it prevents them from carrying out their business. Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned order dated December 15, 2023. The Court restored the status quo as it existed on the date of the show cause notice, November 13, 2023. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a reply to the show cause notice within ten days from the date of the order. Respondent No. 4 was directed to take further steps in accordance with the law. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Deep Construction, was granted GST registration on August 8, 2023. The petitioner failed to file returns as mandated by law. A show cause notice was issued on November 13, 2023, by Respondent No. 4, the Superintendent of Central Goods and Services Tax, Tinsukia Zone, proposing cancellation of registration for non-filing of returns under Section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner's registration was suspended from November 13, 2023. On December 15, 2023, Respondent No. 4 cancelled the registration without assigning any reason. The petitioner claims to have filed returns thereafter. The present writ petition challenges the cancellation order dated December 15, 2023.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order cancelling the GST registration, passed by Respondent No. 4 without assigning any reason, is sustainable in law, particularly in light of Section 39 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the cancellation order dated December 15, 2023, passed by Respondent No. 4, is unsustainable as it was passed without assigning any reason, indicating a total non-application of mind. The petitioner also claimed to have filed returns after the show cause notice was issued. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state.