Lennox Construction Enterprises Llpo, Chhatriy Nagar Aurangabad vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that the respondents had not complied with the statutory provision of Sub-Section 4 of Section 75 of the CGST Act, 2017. This non-compliance, on this sole ground, was sufficient for the Court to interfere with the impugned actions of the respondents. Consequently, the impugned order of cancellation of registration dated 09.03.2024 and the appellate order dated 14.01.2025 were set aside. The matter was remanded to the concerned authority to proceed afresh from the defective stage, specifically to ensure compliance with Sub-Section 4 of Section 75 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner was directed to cooperate with the proceedings, and the respondents were directed to provide the petitioner with a due opportunity of hearing and complete the proceedings within four months. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Oryx Fisheries Private Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. for guidance on quasi-judicial functions. The issue of limitation was not expressly decided as the matter was remanded on the ground of procedural non-compliance.

Facts

The petitioner, Lennox Construction Enterprises LLP, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging the cancellation of its GST registration. The petitioner sought revocation of the cancellation order dated 09.03.2024 and the appellate order dated 14.01.2025. The petitioner argued that the proceedings were initiated beyond the limitation period and that there was non-compliance with Sub-Section 4 of Section 75 of the CGST Act, 2017. The respondents are the State of Bihar and various tax authorities. The amount in dispute is not specified. The procedural history involves the initial cancellation of registration, an appeal to the appellate authority, and the present writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proceedings for cancellation of GST registration were initiated within the prescribed limitation period under the CGST Act, 2017? 2. Whether there was a non-compliance with Sub-Section 4 of Section 75 of the CGST Act, 2017, by the respondent authorities in passing the impugned orders? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the initiation of proceedings by the concerned official respondent was beyond the limitation period. Additionally, the petitioner argued that the respondent authorities failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirement stipulated in Sub-Section 4 of Section 75 of the CGST Act, 2017. Revenue's arguments: The learned counsel for the State, on instruction, submitted that there was indeed a non-compliance with Sub-Section 4 of Section 75 of the CGST Act, 2017.