Ashok Kumar Jha vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Ashok Kumar Jha, approached the High Court challenging the cancellation of his GST registration. The petitioner claimed that the order of cancellation, purportedly passed on January 26, 2023, was not available on the GST portal, nor was a copy provided to him. The downloaded status from the portal showed his registration as suspended, preventing him from filing a revocation application. Another download indicated a show-cause notice for cancellation, while the revenue authority presented a download showing the registration was already cancelled. The revenue authority admitted to writing to the GSTIN portal to ascertain the reason for the missing order. The court noted the discrepancy and the inability of the department to produce the order.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner cannot be left remediless due to the fault in the department's system. The absence of the cancellation order on the portal and the inability of the respondent to provide a hard copy meant the petitioner was deprived of his right to pursue remedies like revocation or appeal. The Court reasoned that systemic failures should not prejudice a taxpayer's rights. Therefore, the respondent CGST authority was directed to furnish a hard copy of the order in original cancelling the petitioner's registration within fifteen days. If this was not done, the petitioner's registration was to be restored, with liberty to the department to initiate fresh proceedings. The issue of the exact date of cancellation and the specific provision under which it was cancelled was not expressly decided, as the focus was on the procedural lapse.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner can be deprived of his right to seek remedies due to systemic faults within the GST department, specifically the non-availability of the cancellation order on the portal and with the respondent authority? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and administrative efficiency). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the department's failure to provide a tangible copy of the cancellation order, and its absence from the official portal, rendered the cancellation ineffective and deprived him of his statutory right to file for revocation or appeal. He argued that he should not suffer due to the department's internal system failures. Revenue's arguments: The respondent CGST authority acknowledged the absence of the order on the portal and stated they were investigating the lapse. They presented a downloaded copy indicating cancellation but could not provide a physical copy of the original order. They relied on the downloaded status of the registration being cancelled.