Muhammed Rafeek Thiyyattil vs. The Superintendent

Facts

The petitioner, Muhammed Rafeek Thiyyattil, a registered dealer, received a show cause notice from the 1st respondent (Superintendent) for cancellation of his GST registration, citing Section 29(2)(e) of the CGST/SGST Acts. The petitioner did not appear or file a reply. He later learned his registration was cancelled effective October 3, 2023. He applied for revocation, which was dismissed by the 1st respondent via Ext.P9 order. The petitioner had previously filed WP(C)No.7958 of 2024 challenging the cancellation order, which resulted in a direction for expeditious disposal of his revocation application. The current writ petition challenges the dismissal of his revocation application (Ext.P9).

Held

The Court held that the impugned order (Ext.P9) dismissing the application for revocation of registration was liable to be set aside. The reasoning was that the 1st respondent, in Ext.P9, found the petitioner's registration liable for cancellation on grounds relatable to Section 29(2)(a) of the CGST/SGST Acts. However, this provision was not mentioned in the original show cause notice (Ext.P4) or the order cancelling the registration (Ext.P5). This discrepancy meant the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to respond to the grounds under Section 29(2)(a). Consequently, the Court set aside Ext.P5, the order cancelling the petitioner's registration, and the proceedings on the revocation application. The Court directed that the petitioner be permitted to file a response to Ext.P4 show cause notice, treating it as a show cause notice under Section 29(2)(a). The petitioner was given two weeks to file this reply, and the 1st respondent was directed to adjudicate the matter within one month thereafter, after providing a hearing. The suspension of the petitioner's registration was to continue until a fresh decision was taken.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dismissing the revocation application (Ext.P9) is liable to be set aside on the ground of a discrepancy in the provisions cited for cancellation of registration, contrary to the initial show cause notice, and if so, which provision of law is applicable, specifically concerning Section 29(2)(a) and Section 29(2)(e) of the CGST/SGST Acts. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the order dismissing the revocation application (Ext.P9) should be set aside because the 1st respondent found the registration liable for cancellation based on grounds relatable to Section 29(2)(a) of the CGST/SGST Acts, whereas the initial show cause notice (Ext.P4) and the subsequent cancellation order (Ext.P5) only referred to Section 29(2)(e). This constitutes a violation of natural justice as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to respond to the grounds under Section 29(2)(a). Respondents' contention: The respondents submitted that even if the initial notice only referred to Section 29(2)(e), the details provided in the show cause notice made it evident that the cancellation was also justifiable under Section 29(2)(a). However, they did not dispute that the show cause notice and cancellation order explicitly mentioned only Section 29(2)(e), while the revocation dismissal order cited Section 29(2)(a).