Jasveen Kaur vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, Jasveen Kaur, was granted GST registration on 24.12.2018. She failed to file her returns as mandated by law. Consequently, on 05.09.2023, the Superintendent of Central Goods and Service Tax (Respondent No. 3) issued a Show Cause notice proposing cancellation of her registration for non-filing of returns under Section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017, and suspended her registration effective from the same date. The Petitioner claims to have filed her returns thereafter. On 14.04.2024, Respondent No. 3 cancelled the Petitioner's GST registration without assigning any reason. The Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this cancellation order.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 14.04.2024, cancelling the Petitioner's GST registration, was unsustainable. The Court found it "shocking" that the order was passed without assigning any reason, which clearly demonstrated a total non-application of mind by the quasi-judicial authority. The Court reasoned that the cancellation of registration entails civil consequences for the Petitioner, as it prevents her from carrying out her business. Therefore, the order must be reasoned. The Court set aside the impugned order dated 14.04.2024. The Petitioner was granted liberty to file a reply to the Show Cause notice dated 05.09.2023 within 10 days, bringing to the notice of Respondent No. 3 the filing of her returns and any other relevant grounds. Respondent No. 3 was directed to take due steps in accordance with law thereafter. The status of the Petitioner's registration was restored to the date of the Show Cause notice.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order cancelling the GST registration of the Petitioner, passed by Respondent No. 3 on 14.04.2024, is sustainable in law, given that it was passed without assigning any reason? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the impugned order dated 14.04.2024, cancelling her GST registration, is unsustainable as it was passed by a quasi-judicial authority without assigning any reason, indicating a total non-application of mind. The Petitioner also submitted that she had subsequently filed her returns. The Petitioner relied on the principle that orders entailing civil consequences must be reasoned. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue or state respondents regarding the sustainability of the cancellation order or the lack of reasons.
Sections Cited
Section 39
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R 28.08.2024
The instant writ petition is filed challenging the order bearing No.ZA1804240120723 dated 14.04.2024 passed by the Respondent No.3 cancelling the GST Registration of the Petitioner.
The facts as could be discerned from a perusal of the writ petition are that the Petitioner herein was granted a registration under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and was issued a certificate on 24.12.2018. However, the Petitioner could not file his return as mandated under law. A Show Cause notice was issued on 05.09.2023 by the Respondent No.3 asking the Petitioner to Show Cause as to why his registration should not be cancelled for not filing the returns under Section 39 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. In the said Show Cause notice, it was also mentioned that the Registration of the Petitioner was suspended w.e.f. 05.09.2023. It is not known as to whether any Show Cause reply was filed by the petitioner.
Be that as it may, on 14.04.2024, the Respondent No.3 cancelled the registration without assigning any reason. It is also seen from the records that the Petitioner claims that he had filed his returns thereafter in terms with Section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017. Thereupon, the instant writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the order of cancellation dated 14.04.2024. 4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused
Page No.# 3/3 the materials on record.
A perusal of the impugned order dated 14.04.2024 would show that the said order is passed by a quasi judicial authority. The effect of the said order would be that in absence of a registration, the Petitioner cannot carry out his business. Therefore, the effect of the said impugned order would entail civil consequences.
In the backdrop of the said, if this Court peruses the order, it is shocking that the Respondent No.3 had cancelled the registration assigning any reason. This clearly shows a total non-application of mind. Accordingly, this Court therefore sets aside the said impugned order dated 14.04.2024 thereby restoring the status back to the date on which the Show Cause notice dated 05.09.2023 was issued.
The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that in the meantime, the Petitioner had already filed his returns. The Petitioner is given the liberty to file reply to the said Show Cause notice bringing to the notice of the Respondent No.3 about the filing of the returns as well as any other grounds which the Petitioner deems fit and proper. The said exercise be done within a period of 10 (ten) days from today and thereupon, the Respondent No.3 shall take due steps in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of in terms with the observations and directions made hereinabove
JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.