Dhruba Jyoti Saikia vs. Union Of INDIA And 3 Ors.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 28.02.2023, cancelling the Petitioner's GST registration, was unsustainable in law. The Court found the reason provided for cancellation, "Registration is cancelled", to be a clear indication of total non-application of mind and devoid of any justifiable grounds. The Court emphasized that such an order, having civil consequences by preventing the Petitioner from carrying out business, requires proper reasoning. Accordingly, the Court set aside the cancellation order dated 28.02.2023. The Court restored the status quo as it existed on the date of the Show Cause Notice (15.01.2023). The Petitioner was granted liberty to file an additional reply to the Show Cause Notice within 10 days, bringing to the notice of Respondent No.4 the fact that returns have been filed and any other relevant grounds. Respondent No.4 was directed to take due steps in accordance with law thereafter.

Facts

The Petitioner, Dhruva Jyoti Saikia, was granted GST registration on 24.05.2018. Due to financial hardship, the Petitioner failed to file returns. The Superintendent of Central Goods and Service Tax, Sivasagar Range-2 (Respondent No.4), issued a Show Cause Notice on 15.01.2023, proposing cancellation of registration for non-filing of returns under Section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017, and suspended the registration from the same date. The Petitioner's reply to this notice is not on record. Subsequently, on 28.02.2023, Respondent No.4 cancelled the registration with the reason "Registration is cancelled". The Petitioner claims to have filed returns thereafter and filed the present writ petition challenging the cancellation order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order cancelling the GST registration of the Petitioner, passed by Respondent No.4 on 28.02.2023, is sustainable in law, particularly in light of the stated reason "Registration is cancelled"? Petitioner's contention: The Petitioner argued that the cancellation order is arbitrary and lacks application of mind, as it provides no justifiable reasons. The order has civil consequences, impacting the Petitioner's ability to conduct business. The Petitioner also submitted that he has since filed his returns. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the Revenue or State respondents regarding the validity of the cancellation order or the Petitioner's submissions.