Jayvir Govubha Jadeja vs. The Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Jayvir Govubha Jadeja, filed a writ application challenging an order passed by the GST authority cancelling his GST registration. The petitioner contended that the cancellation order was passed without providing an adequate opportunity of hearing. The High Court, in a previous order dated 08.01.2021, prima facie agreed with the petitioner, noting that the show cause notice appeared to reflect a non-application of mind and that the cancellation order was issued without a proper hearing. The Court had asked the respondents' counsel to explore the possibility of withdrawing the order to allow for a fresh, reasoned order after a hearing. The matter was listed for further hearing on 12.01.2021.
Held
The High Court disposed of the writ application based on the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The Court directed the writ applicant to prefer an application under Section 30 of the CGST Act for revocation of cancellation of registration at the earliest. Following the filing of this application, the concerned authority is mandated to pass an appropriate order within three days, in accordance with the statement made by the Standing Counsel. This approach aims to resolve the litigation by allowing the petitioner to seek revocation and the authority to reconsider the matter, thereby addressing the procedural lapse of not providing a proper hearing. The Court effectively accepted the proposed resolution to bring the matter to an end.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration, passed under Section 29 of the GST Act, was violative of principles of natural justice by failing to provide an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the impugned order cancelling his GST registration was passed without affording him a proper opportunity of hearing. The show cause notice itself indicated a lack of application of mind by the authority. Revenue's Argument: The revenue, through its counsel, acknowledged discrepancies in the notice, attributing them to a portal issue at the time. They proposed a resolution wherein the petitioner would file an application for revocation of cancellation of registration under Section 30 of the CGST Act, after which the authority would pass an appropriate order recalling the impugned order.
Sections Cited
Section 29, Section 30
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)
We have heard Mr. Pavan Agrawal, the learned counsel assisted by Mr. Rahul L. Gajera, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant and Mr. Jaimin Gandhi, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
On 08.01.2021, this Court passed the following order : “We have heard Mr. Pawan C. Agrawal, the learned counsel assisted by Mr. Rahul Gajera, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant and Mr. Jaimin Gandhi, the learned standing
counsel
appearing
for the respondents. Prima facie, we are convinced with the submissions canvassed on behalf of the writ applicant that the impugned order passed by the authority under Section2 9 of the GST Act cancelling the GST Registration was without giving any opportunity of hearing to the writ C/SCA/11440/2020 ORDER applicant. Prima facie the show cause notice itself reflects complete nonapplication of mind. Prima facie, we are of the view that we should remit this matter to the authority so as to give the writ applicant an opportunity of hearing. In such circumstances, we have asked Mr. Gandhi to speak to the authority concerned whether he would be willing to recall or withdraw the matter so as to give an opportunity of hearing to the writ applicant and thereafter pass a fresh reasoned order. Post this matter on 12.01.2021 as Item No.1 on the board. ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION: The Civil Application stands disposed of.”
Today, when the matter is taken up for further hearing, Mr. Gandhi, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that Mr. A.K.Singh, Superintendent is sitting next to him for the purpose of instructions. Mr. Gandhi would submit that he has discussed the matter with Mr. A.K.Singh. Mr. Gandhi has a very fair proposal to put forward before this Court, so as to bring to an end this litigation. Mr. Gandhi accepts that there are discrepancies in the notice as at that point of time, there was some problem with the portal. He suggested that, let the writ applicant file an application under Section 30 of the CGST Act for the revocation of cancellation of registration. He would submit that, once such an application is filed, the authority concerned shall pass an appropriate order recalling the impugned order in the case at hand. C/SCA/11440/2020 ORDER
In view of the aforesaid statement made by Mr. Gandhi, we dispose of this writ application asking the writ applicant to prefer an application under Section 30 of the CGST Act at the earliest. Once such application is filed, the authority concerned shall pass appropriate order within 3 (three) days in accordance with the statement made by Mr. Gandhi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
With the above, this writ application stands disposed of. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (ILESH J. VORA,J) SUCHIT
Reproduced from the public record of the Gujarat High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.