Ashwani Agarwal vs. Union Of INDIA Through Secretary (Revenue) And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was maintainable. The primary issue was the contradictory nature of the impugned order dated April 14, 2020. The order stated that the petitioner's registration was cancelled because no reply was received and no hearing was attended. However, the order itself began by referencing the petitioner's reply dated February 25, 2020, in response to the show cause notice dated February 14, 2020. This internal contradiction rendered the order arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law. The Court found that the reasoning for cancellation was contrary to the facts stated within the order itself. Consequently, the order dated April 14, 2020, passed by the Superintendent, Kanpur Sector 12, Central Goods and Services Tax, was set aside. The Court granted liberty to the respondent no. 2 (Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax) to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The writ petition was allowed.

Facts

The petitioner, Ashwani Agarwal, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated April 14, 2020, passed by the Superintendent, Kanpur Sector 12, Central Goods and Services Tax, cancelling his GST registration. The petitioner had received a show cause notice for cancellation of registration on February 14, 2020, and his counsel had appeared on February 25, 2020. The impugned order stated that the cancellation was approved because the taxpayer had not attended the hearing nor submitted any reply. However, the order itself referenced the petitioner's reply dated February 25, 2020, in response to the show cause notice. The revenue authorities conceded that the order could not be sustained.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 30 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? 2. Whether the order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration is arbitrary and illegal on its face, given the contradictory statements within the order itself? Petitioner's arguments: The writ petition is maintainable because the impugned order is per-se illegal, passed without application of mind, and arbitrary. The order cancelling registration is contradictory as it states no reply was filed, yet refers to a reply dated February 25, 2020. This makes the order unsustainable. Respondent's arguments: The respondent initially raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 30 of the CGST Act. However, the learned counsel for the respondent fairly conceded that the impugned order could not be sustained in law and agreed for the matter to be remanded.