Syed Wasim Rohman vs. The State Of Assam And 2 Ors

Held

The Court held that while the petitioner raised a valid point regarding the premature cancellation of registration under Section 29 of the Assam GST Act, 2017, an alternative and efficacious remedy was available to the petitioner under Section 30 of the same Act. This section allows an aggrieved person to apply for revocation of the cancellation of registration. Therefore, the Court decided to relegate the petitioner to the concerned designated authority to avail this prescribed remedy. The Court further directed that if the petitioner files an application for revocation within 15 days from the date of the order, the authorities shall accept it and shall not dismiss it on grounds of delay. The Court also expressed hope that the application would be disposed of within 15 days thereafter. The issue of whether the cancellation was indeed premature under Section 29 was not definitively decided, as the Court opted to direct the petitioner to pursue the remedy under Section 30.

Facts

The petitioner, Syed Wasim Rohman, proprietor of M/s S.K. Enterprise, registered under GST, had his registration suspended on 12.11.2022, by the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Jorhat. The suspension was based on a field inspection that found no additional place of business or business activity at the principal place. The petitioner submitted a reply on 21.11.2022. However, on 22.11.2022, the registration was cancelled effective from the same date. The petitioner challenged the show-cause notice and the cancellation order, arguing that the cancellation was premature as his GST registration was granted on 09.06.2022, and Section 29 of the Assam GST Act permits cancellation only if business is not commenced within six months of registration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration by the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Jorhat, was premature and in contravention of Section 29 of the Assam GST Act, 2017, given that the registration was granted on 09.06.2022 and cancellation was ordered on 22.11.2022, prior to the expiry of the six-month period for commencement of business? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the cancellation was premature as it occurred before the six-month period stipulated in Section 29 of the Assam GST Act for commencing business had elapsed. The petitioner also referred to GSTR-1 forms to demonstrate that business was being conducted from the premises. Revenue's contention: The learned standing counsel for the respondents pointed to Section 13 of the Assam GST Act, 2017, which outlines the procedure for aggrieved persons to apply for revocation of cancellation of registration within 30 days of receiving the cancellation order. The respondents also highlighted Section 30 of the Assam GST Act, 2017, which provides an alternative and efficacious remedy for revocation of cancellation.