M/S Rosmerta Hsrp Ventures Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Original PDF →
W.P.(C)/1061/2024HC DelhiGSTCNR DLHC01002156202427 May 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA6 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Rosmerta HSRP Ventures Private Limited, challenged a GST registration cancellation order dated 05.08.2022 and a Show Cause Notice dated 27.07.2022. The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled retrospectively from 27.07.2022. The Show Cause Notice cited 'Others' as the reason and did not mention retrospective cancellation. The cancellation order stated the principal place of business was found non-existent during a visit on 20.07.2022, citing Section 29(2), 29(3), and 29(5) of the CGST Act, 2017. The order also noted zero dues against the petitioner. The petitioner explained that their concession agreement for High Security Registration Plates was terminated, and they shifted operations. They failed to reply to the SCN due to an accountant leaving and only became aware of the cancellation later. Subsequent requests for revival were not responded to.

Held

The Court held that the order dated 05.08.2022 cancelling the petitioner's GST registration retrospectively is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. The Court reasoned that the cancellation of registration with retrospective effect cannot be done mechanically and must be based on objective criteria, not subjective satisfaction. Merely not filing returns for some periods does not justify retrospective cancellation covering periods when the taxpayer was compliant. The Court noted that the Show Cause Notice did not inform the petitioner about the retrospective cancellation, denying them an opportunity to object. The cancellation order also lacked specific reasons for retrospective cancellation. While the respondents contended that retrospective cancellation denies input tax credit to customers, the Court found the order itself to be flawed. The GST registration of the petitioner is restored. The petitioner is directed to make all necessary compliances and file requisite returns and information in terms of Rule 23 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The respondents are not precluded from taking steps for recovery of any dues in accordance with law, including retrospective cancellation after proper notice and hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the retrospective cancellation of GST registration under Section 29(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, without proper notice and opportunity to object to the retrospective nature, is valid? 2. Whether the cancellation order, which lacks specific reasons and relies on a non-existent principal place of business, is sustainable? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the Show Cause Notice did not inform them about the retrospective cancellation, thus denying them an opportunity to object. They argued that the cancellation order itself was bereft of specific reasons for retrospective cancellation. They also highlighted that they had ceased operations at the stated principal place of business and were operating from an additional place of business, which was disclosed. They further stated that they were willing to comply with all pending formalities. Respondents' arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents regarding the validity of the retrospective cancellation or the reasons provided in the order. However, it notes the respondents' contention that retrospective cancellation denies customers input tax credit.

Sections Cited

Section 29(2), Section 29(3), Section 29(5), Rule 23

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
WP (C) 1061/2024 Page 1 of 6 $~43 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 27.05.2024 W.P.(C) 1061/2024 & CM APPLs. 4431/2024, 24635/2024 M/S ROSMERTA HSRP VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner: Ms. Charanya Lakshmi Kumaran, Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Mr. Kunal Kapoor and Mr. Yatharth Tripathi, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC with Mr. Kumar Abhishek and Mr. Subham Kumar, Advocates for R-1 to 5 CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1.

Petitioner impugns order dated 05.08.2022 whereby the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled retrospectively with effect from 27.07.2022. Petitioner also impugns Show Cause Notice dated 27.07.2022. 2. Petitioner is engaged in the business of supplying High Security Registration Plates and possessed GST registration bearing number 07AAFCR7758G1ZZ under the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). WP (C) 1061/2024 3. Show Cause Notice dated 27.07.2022 was issued to the petitioner seeking to cancel its registration. Though the notice does not specify any cogent reason, it merely states “Others”. Further, the said Show Cause Notice also does not put the Petitioner to notice that the registration is liable to be cancelled retrospectively. Accordingly, the Petitioner had no opportunity to even object to the retrospective cancellation of the registration.

4.

Thereafter, impugned order dated 05.08.2022 passed on the Show Cause Notice does not give any reasons for cancellation. It merely states that the registration is liable to be cancelled for the following reason “1. GSTN registration is hereby cancelled under Section 29(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 29(3) and 29(5) of Act ibid. During the visit on 20.7.2022 address of principal place of business at B-58, Ground Floor, Phase-I, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110064 found non-existent.”. The order further states that effective date of cancellation of registration is 27.07.2022 i.e., a retrospective date. There is no material on record to show as to why the registration is sought to be cancelled retrospectively.

5.

It may be noted that in the impugned order of cancellation, in the column of dues at the bottom there is ‘zero’ amount stated to be due against the petitioner and the table shows nil demand.

6.

As per the Petitioner, High Security Registration Plates WP (C) 1061/2024 (HSRPs) were being provided by respective States. Concession agreements were entered with HSRP manufacturers, which were duly approved by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highway (MoRTH). However, MoRTH vide its Notifications Nos. G.S.R 1162(E) dated 04.12.2018 and S.O. 6052 (E) dated 06.12.2018 modalities of the system supplying the HSRP were changed.

7.

Consequently, the Transport Department State of NCT of Delhi vide its Order No. DC/OPS/TPT/2020/075445667/1692-1694 dated 14.05.2020 terminated the concession agreement entered with the Petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.2019/01.07.2019, before the expiry of the initially 15 year agreed period.

8.

As per the petitioner after the closure of the project, Petitioner carried out closure formalities from its principal place of business at Mayapuri till June 2021, and started carrying out the activities from its premises at Kapashera, which was also disclosed as the additional place of business.

9.

As per the petitioner, he could not reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 27.07.2022 as the accountant had left the job and the petitioner was unaware of the said proceedings. It is contended that Petitioner became aware of the cancellation of its GST registration when petitioner attempted to file GST returns for the month of August 2022. WP (C) 1061/2024 10. Vide letters dated 02.09.2023, 06.09.2023, 29.09.2023, 08.11.2023 and 22.11.2023, petitioner sought revival of GST registration, however, no response has been received from the department till date.

11.

Petitioner intends to carry out further business activities from the additional place of business situated at Kapashera and is willing to comply with all the pending formalities including filing of pending returns up to date.

12.

Further, we may note that the Show Cause Notice and the impugned order are bereft of any details. Neither the Show Cause Notice, nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation.

13.

In terms of Section 29(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the proper officer may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit if the circumstances set out in the said sub-section are satisfied. The registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically. It can be cancelled only if the proper officer deems it fit to do so. Such satisfaction cannot be subjective but must be based on some objective criteria. Merely, because a taxpayer has not filed the returns for some period does not mean that the taxpayer’s registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also WP (C) 1061/2024 covering the period when the returns were filed, and the taxpayer was compliant.

14.

It is important to note that, according to the respondent, one of the consequences for cancelling a taxpayer’s registration with retrospective effect is that the taxpayer’s customers are denied the input tax credit availed in respect of the supplies made by the taxpayer during such period. Although, we do not consider it apposite to examine this aspect but assuming that the respondent’s contention in this regard is correct, it would follow that the proper officer is also required to consider this aspect while passing any order for cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect. Thus, a taxpayer’s registration can be cancelled with retrospective effect only where such consequences are intended and are warranted.

15.

In view of the aforesaid, order dated 05.08.2022 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The GST registration of the petitioner is restored. Petitioner shall, however, make all necessary compliances and file the requisite returns and information inter alia in terms of Rule 23 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. 16. It is clarified that Respondents are not precluded from taking any steps for recovery of any tax, penalty or interest that may be due in respect of the subject firm in accordance with law including WP (C) 1061/2024 retrospective cancellation of the GST registration after giving a proper notice and an opportunity of hearing.

17.

The petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J RAVINDER DUDEJA, J MAY 27, 2024/vp

Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.