Pushpendra Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And 2 Others

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner had already filed a reply to the show cause notice. It was of the view that keeping the petition pending would serve no purpose. Consequently, the Court directed the respondent no.3, Assistant Commissioner/Superintendent Range-34, Division Hapaur, Commissionerate Noida, to complete the proceedings initiated by the show cause notice dated 12.10.2023 within three weeks from the date of the order. Furthermore, the Court ordered that the suspension of the petitioner's registration, as noted in the order dated 12.10.2023, shall remain stayed until the completion of the proceedings under Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court did not explicitly rule on the validity of the suspension in the absence of a recorded opinion but effectively provided interim relief by staying the suspension pending finalization of the proceedings.

Facts

The petitioner, Pushpendra Singh, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 12.10.2023 issued by the Assistant Commissioner/Superintendent, Range-34, Division Hapaur, Commissionerate Noida, under Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017. The same authority also suspended the petitioner's GST registration on 12.10.2023, exercising powers under the second proviso to Section 29(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 21A(2) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice on 18.10.2023 but contended that the proceedings were being unnecessarily delayed, causing commercial loss due to the suspension of his registration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the suspension of the petitioner's GST registration by the respondent no.3, under the second proviso to Section 29(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 21A(2) of the CGST Rules, 2017, was valid without the authority recording an opinion as stipulated under Rule 21A(2) of the CGST Rules, 2017? The petitioner argued that the suspension was illegal as the authority failed to record the requisite opinion before suspending the registration. The respondent's arguments were not recorded in the judgment. 2. Whether the proceedings under Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017, were being unnecessarily delayed by the respondent no.3, causing prejudice to the petitioner? The petitioner contended that the delay was causing commercial hardship.