Kiran Devi Goel( Prop. M/S Shree Krishna Enterprises) vs. Superintendent Range - 23,Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Kiran Devi Goel, proprietor of M/s Shree Krishna Enterprises, challenged a GST registration cancellation order dated 17.07.2023, which cancelled her registration retrospectively from 07.07.2017. She also challenged a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 27.06.2023. The SCN cited "Section 29(2)(e)-registration obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts" as the reason for cancellation but lacked specific details and the name/designation of the issuing officer or the place of appearance. The impugned order also failed to provide specific reasons for the cancellation. The petitioner later filed an application for condonation of delay in revocation of cancellation on 21.08.2023 due to a family member's medical condition. She received a subsequent SCN on 14.02.2024 regarding this application but could not reply due to late receipt. Her application was rejected on 07.03.2024 for non-response and non-appearance.
Held
The Court held that both the Show Cause Notice dated 27.06.2023 and the impugned order dated 17.07.2023 for cancellation of GST registration are unsustainable. The Court found that the SCN and the order were "bereft of any details" and did not spell out the reasons for the retrospective cancellation. Crucially, the SCN did not inform the petitioner that her registration was liable to be cancelled retrospectively, thus depriving her of an opportunity to object to this aspect. The Court noted that while Section 29(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, permits retrospective cancellation, it cannot be done mechanically. Such cancellation must be based on objective criteria and the proper officer's satisfaction, considering potential consequences like denial of input tax credit to customers. The Court set aside the order dated 17.07.2023 and restored the petitioner's GST registration. The petitioner was directed to make necessary compliances and file requisite returns. The respondents were not precluded from taking steps for recovery of any tax, penalty, or interest in accordance with law, including retrospective cancellation if warranted.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Show Cause Notice dated 27.06.2023 and the consequential order dated 17.07.2023 for cancellation of GST registration are sustainable in law, given their lack of specific reasons and details regarding the alleged fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts, and whether the petitioner was adequately put to notice regarding the retrospective cancellation? (Section 29(2) of the CGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's arguments: The SCN and the cancellation order are bereft of any details and thus cannot be sustained. The SCN did not specify the reasons for cancellation nor did it inform the petitioner that the registration was liable to be cancelled retrospectively, thereby denying her an opportunity to object to such retrospective cancellation. The subsequent rejection of her condonation application was also flawed due to late receipt of notice. Respondents' arguments: Not recorded in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 29(2), Rule 23
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner impugns order dated 17.07.2023 whereby the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled retrospectively with effect from 07.07.2017. Petitioner also impugns Show Cause Notice dated 27.06.2023. 2. By Show Cause Notice dated 27.06.2023, petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the registration be not cancelled for the following reason:- W.P.(C) 4251/2024 “Section 29(2)(e)-registration obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts”.
Said Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner on 27.06.2023. Though the notice does not specify any cogent reason, it merely states “Section 29(2)(e)-registration obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts”. Show Cause Notice required the petitioner to appear on 04.07.2023 at 1:20 PM before the undersigned i.e. authority issuing the notice. However, the said Notice does not give the name or designation of the officer or place where the petitioner has to appear.
Thereafter, the impugned order dated 17.07.2023 passed on the Show Cause Notice does not give any reasons for cancellation. It merely states “reference to show cause notice issued dated 27/06.2023” and subsequently states “the effective date of cancellation of your registration is 07/07/2017”. The order further states that effective date of cancellation of registration is 07.07.2017 i.e., a retrospective date.
Learned counsel for Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had filed an application for condonation of delay of revocation of cancellation of registration dated 21.08.2023 on the ground that processing of documents got delayed due to a family member’s medical condition.
He further submits that the Petitioner was served with a Show Cause Notice dated 14.02.2024 on the application dated 21.08.2023, however, Petitioner being a senior citizen could not reply to the said notice as she received the notice late. Thereafter, vide order dated 07.03.2024, the said application was rejected on the ground “No response received from the taxpayer, nor the taxpayer appeared for W.P.(C) 4251/2024 personal hearing, hence request for condonation of delay is being rejected”.
We notice that the Show Cause Notice and the impugned order are bereft of any details. Accordingly, the same cannot be sustained. Neither the Show Cause Notice, nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation.
Further, the 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. [
In terms of Section 29(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, 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. The 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.
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 taxpayer during such W.P.(C) 4251/2024 period. Although, we do not consider it apposite to examine this aspect but assuming that the respondent’s contention in this regard is correct, it would follow that the proper officer is also 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.
In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 17.07.2023 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The GST registration of the petitioner is restored. Petitioner shall, however, make all necessary compliances and file the requisite returns and information inter alia in terms of Rule 23 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. 12. It is clarified that Respondents are also 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 retrospective cancellation of the GST registration.
The petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J RAVINDER DUDEJA, J MARCH 20, 2024/RM
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.