Swati Gupta vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax & Anr.

Original PDF →
W.P.(C)/5897/2024HC DelhiGSTCNR DLHC01022291202426 April 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA6 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The petitioner, Swati Gupta, sought cancellation of her GST registration due to business closure. Her application dated 20.06.2020 was rejected on 25.06.2021 with the reason "Reply is not satisfactory" without specific details. Subsequently, a Show Cause Notice dated 30.06.2021 was issued, stating "Any taxpayer other than composition taxpayer has not filed returns for a continuous period of six months." This notice lacked details on the date and time for personal hearing and did not mention retrospective cancellation. The impugned order dated 28.10.2021 cancelled the GST registration retrospectively from 01.07.2017, citing "no reply to notice to show cause has been submitted" despite also referencing a reply dated 06.10.2021. The order also noted nil dues against the petitioner. The petitioner argued that returns were filed until 31.03.2020, and no returns were filed post-March 2020 due to business closure during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Held

The Court held that the Show Cause Notice and the impugned order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration were bereft of necessary details and cogent reasons, thus failing to meet the requirements of law and natural justice. Specifically, the retrospective cancellation from 01.07.2017 was not justified by objective criteria, and the petitioner was not given a proper opportunity to address the grounds for such cancellation. The Court noted that while Section 29(2) of the Act permits retrospective cancellation, it cannot be done mechanically. The reasoning was that merely not filing returns for some period does not warrant retrospective cancellation covering periods when returns were filed and the taxpayer was compliant. The Court also acknowledged that retrospective cancellation can have adverse consequences for customers regarding input tax credit. Since both parties desired the cancellation of registration, the Court modified the impugned order. The registration was deemed cancelled prospectively from 20.06.2020, the date the petitioner applied for cancellation. The respondents were not precluded from taking recovery steps in accordance with law, provided proper notice and personal hearing were given.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017, vide order dated 28.10.2021, is valid and sustainable in law, particularly concerning Section 29(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the principles of natural justice? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the Show Cause Notice and the cancellation order lacked specific reasons and details, failing to provide an opportunity to object to retrospective cancellation. The retrospective cancellation was arbitrary and not based on objective criteria, especially when returns were filed until March 2020 and the business had ceased operations. The petitioner relied on the principle that retrospective cancellation should not be mechanical and should consider consequences like denial of input tax credit to customers. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the respondent revenue authority regarding the validity of the retrospective cancellation or the procedural deficiencies. The revenue's actions, as reflected in the notices and orders, were the basis of the challenge.

Sections Cited

Section 29(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
W.P. (C) 5897/2024 Page 1 of 6 $~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 26.04.2024 W.P.(C) 5897/2024 & CM APPL. 24329/2024 SWATI GUPTA ..... Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GOODS AND SERVICES TAX & ANR ...... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner: Mr. Sumit K. Batra, Mr. Manish Khurana & Ms. Priyanka Jindal, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, ASC. CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1.

Petitioner impugns order dated 28.10.2021 whereby the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled retrospectively with effect from 01.07.2017 and also impugns Show Cause Notice dated 30.06.2021. Petitioner further impugns order dated 25.06.2021 dismissing the Application for Cancellation filed by the petitioner seeking cancellation of GST registration. W.P. (C) 5897/2024 2. Issue notice. Notice accepted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent. With the consent of parties, petition is taken up for final disposal today.

3.

Petitioner was engaged in the business of trading raisins and possessed GST Registration under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

4.

Petitioner submitted an application dated 20.06.2020 seeking cancellation of the GST Registration on the ground of closure of business.

5.

Pursuant to the said application, Notice dated 31.03.2021 was issued to the petitioner seeking additional information and documents relating to the application for cancellation of registration. Petitioner replied to the said notice on 07.04.2021. However, the application seeking cancellation of registration was rejected vide order dated 25.06.2021. Though the said order does not give any specific reasons for rejection, it merely states “Reply is not satisfactory”. Said order does not give any particulars or details.

6.

Thereafter, impugned Show Cause Notice dated 30.06.2021 was issued to the Petitioner seeking to cancel its registration. Said notice also does not specify any cogent reason, it merely states “Any taxpayer other than composition taxpayer has not filed returns for a continuous period of six months.” Said Show Cause Notice required the petitioner to appear before the undersigned i.e., authority issuing W.P. (C) 5897/2024 the notice. However, the said Notice did not bear the date and time when or where the Petitioner was required to appear for personal hearing.

7.

Said Show Cause Notice also does not put the petitioner to notice that the registration is liable to be cancelled retrospectively. Thus, the petitioner had no opportunity to even object to the retrospective cancellation of the registration.

8.

Thereafter, impugned order dated 28.10.2021 passed on the Show Cause Notice does not give any reasons for cancellation. It merely states that the registration is liable to be cancelled for the following reason “Whereas no reply to notice to show cause has been submitted”. However, the said order in itself is contradictory. The order states “reference to your reply dated 06/10/2021 in response to the notice to show cause dated 30/06/2021” and the reason stated for cancellation is “Whereas no reply to notice to show cause has been submitted”. The order further states that effective date of cancellation of registration is 01.07.2017 i.e., a retrospective date. There is no material on record to show as to why the registration is sought to be cancelled retrospectively.

9.

It may be noted that on one hand, the order states that the registration is liable to be cancelled and on the other, in the column at the bottom there are no dues stated to be due against the petitioner and the table shows nil demand. W.P. (C) 5897/2024 10. As per the petitioner, all returns have been filed till 31.03.2020, i.e., till the business was functional. No returns have been filed post March 2020 due to closure of business.

11.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is no longer interested in continuing business and has closed down all business activities which came to a standstill due to the lockdown period during Covid-19 pandemic.

12.

We notice that the Show Cause Notice and the impugned order are also bereft of any details. Neither the Show Cause Notice, nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation. Accordingly, the same cannot be sustained.

13.

In terms of Section 29(2) of the Act, the proper officer may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit if the circumstances set out in the said sub-section are satisfied. Registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically. It can be cancelled only if the proper officer deems it fit to do so. Such satisfaction cannot be subjective but must be based on some objective criteria. Merely, because a taxpayer has not filed the returns for some period does not mean that the taxpayer’s registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when the returns were filed and the taxpayer was compliant. W.P. (C) 5897/2024 14. It is important to note that, according to the respondent, one of the consequences for cancelling a taxpayer’s registration with retrospective effect is that the taxpayer’s customers are denied the input tax credit availed in respect of the supplies made by the tax payer during such period. Although, we do not consider it apposite to examine this aspect but assuming that the respondent’s contention is required to consider this aspect while passing any order for cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect. Thus, a taxpayer's registration can be cancelled with retrospective effect only where such consequences are intended and are warranted.

15.

It is clear that both the petitioner and the respondent want the GST registration to be cancelled, though for different reasons.

16.

In view of the above that the Petitioner does not seek to carry on business or continue the registration, the impugned order dated 28.10.2021 is modified to the limited extent that registration shall now be treated as cancelled with effect from 20.06.2020 i.e., the date when petitioner filed an application seeking cancellation of GST registration.

17.

Petitioner shall make the necessary compliances as required by Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 18. It is clarified that Respondents are not precluded from taking any steps for recovery of any tax, penalty or interest that may be due in respect of the subject firm in accordance with law including W.P. (C) 5897/2024 retrospective cancellation of the GST registration after giving a proper notice and a personal hearing to the Petitioner.

19.

Petition is disposed of in the above terms. SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J RAVINDER DUDEJA, J APRIL 26, 2024/sk

Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.