Rakib Sarkar vs. The Union Of INDIA And 3 Ors

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated September 12, 2023, cancelling the petitioner's GST registration was passed by a quasi-judicial authority without assigning any reason, which is a clear indication of a total non-application of mind. The Court found this to be shocking, especially since the cancellation of registration entails civil consequences for the petitioner, preventing him from carrying out his business. Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned order. The Court restored the status quo to the date of the Show Cause notice dated August 8, 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. 3 was directed to take necessary steps in accordance with the law thereafter. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Rakib Sarkar, proprietor of M/s AR Enterprise, was granted GST registration on July 9, 2019. He failed to file his GST returns as mandated by law. Consequently, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax, Dhubri (Respondent No. 3), issued a Show Cause notice on August 8, 2023, proposing cancellation of registration for non-filing of returns under Section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017. The notice also stated that the petitioner's registration was suspended from August 8, 2023. On September 12, 2023, Respondent No. 3 cancelled the petitioner's GST registration without assigning any reason. The petitioner claims to have filed his returns thereafter. This writ petition challenges the order of cancellation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order cancelling the GST registration, passed without assigning any reason, is sustainable in law, particularly considering it entails civil consequences for the petitioner? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the order of cancellation dated September 12, 2023, passed by Respondent No. 3, is unsustainable as it was passed without assigning any reason, demonstrating a total non-application of mind. The petitioner also stated that he had filed his returns after the show cause notice was issued. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the context implies the respondents would defend the cancellation order. The judgment notes it is not known if the petitioner filed a reply to the show cause notice.