M/S Vinayak Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax, Bawana Division, North Delhi

Held

The Court held that the ends of justice would be met by granting the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated September 13, 2024. The Court reasoned that allowing the petitioner to submit the required documentation would facilitate a proper examination and disposal of the revocation application. The Court directed that the petitioner should submit the requested documentation within a period of two weeks from the date of the order. Consequently, the application for revocation of GST registration cancellation is to be examined and disposed of in accordance with the law and with due expedition by the respondent authority. The Court explicitly stated that all rights and contentions of both parties on merits are kept open, meaning the substantive issues regarding the cancellation and revocation remain to be decided after the petitioner complies with the SCN.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Vinayak Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated September 9, 2024, which cancelled its Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration under Section 29(2)(e) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner subsequently filed an application on September 10, 2024, seeking revocation of this cancellation. In response, the respondent, Assistant Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax, issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) on September 13, 2024, in Form GST REG-23. This SCN indicated that the petitioner's revocation application was liable for rejection and requested specific documents, including purchase invoices with e-way bills for FY 2024-25, bank statements, party-wise ledgers, ITC reconciliation, and proprietor's Aadhar/PAN card. The petitioner was also directed to appear for a personal hearing on September 20, 2024.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to respond to the Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued by the respondent authority regarding the rejection of its application for revocation of GST registration cancellation, as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the CGST Act and Rules? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, by filing the writ petition, implicitly sought an opportunity to comply with the SCN and have its revocation application considered on merits. The petitioner's argument centers on the need for a fair procedural process. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, through its counsel, acknowledged the petitioner's application for revocation and the subsequent issuance of the SCN. The respondent's stance, as indicated by the SCN, is that the revocation application is liable for rejection due to non-submission of required documents and failure to appear for a personal hearing. The respondent relied on the provisions of Section 29(2)(e) of the CGST Act and Rule 23(3) of the CGST Rules, which govern the process of cancellation and revocation of registration.