S.K.M. Timber Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner, CGST And Ce Burrabazar Div. Kolkata North Commissionerate And Ors.

Held

The Court noted that the writ petition was filed challenging the show cause notice for cancellation of registration. The petitioner had filed a reply, but the proceedings were not completed, and the registration was suspended. The Court observed that a hearing had not yet been conducted. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent authorities to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. This includes providing an effective hearing to the writ petitioner, either in person or through their lawyer, within 30 days from the date of communication of the order. The petitioner was granted liberty to communicate the order to the respondent authorities. The Court did not delve into the merits of the show cause notice or the validity of the suspension of registration.

Facts

The petitioner, S.K.M. Timber Private Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated March 14, 2024, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, for the cancellation of its GST registration. The petitioner submitted a reply to this notice. However, the process remained incomplete, and in the interim, the petitioner's registration was suspended. The petitioner contended that a hearing had not yet been completed. The respondent authorities are the Assistant Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, and others.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay in completing the proceedings for cancellation of GST registration, despite the petitioner filing a reply to the show cause notice, is arbitrary and warrants intervention by this Court? The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was issued on March 14, 2024, and a reply was submitted. However, the authorities had not completed the process, and the petitioner's registration was suspended. The petitioner emphasized that a hearing had not been conducted, leading to an undue delay and prejudice. The petitioner sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of the matter. The respondent authorities did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the delay or the merits of the cancellation proceedings.