Gurunanak Enterprises vs. State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of his GST registration, an order dated 26.11.2022. The cancellation was based on the ground that the petitioner's place of business could not be located during a field visit by GST Department authorities. The petitioner contends that he was not given prior information as required by Rule 25 of the CGST Rules, 2017, and was not afforded an opportunity of hearing as stipulated by the proviso to Section 29 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner seeks to have his case decided in line with a previous order dated 10.1.2024, in WPMS No. 482 of 2023.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the Proper Officer for redressal of his grievance within ten days from the date of the order. The Court directed that if the petitioner files such a representation within the stipulated period, the Proper Officer shall decide it within four weeks thereafter. The Court did not explicitly rule on the validity of the cancellation or the procedural arguments raised by the petitioner, but rather provided a procedural mechanism for resolution. The reasoning appears to be based on the agreement of the parties and the precedent of the earlier order, aiming for a swift resolution of the petitioner's grievance. No specific finding was made on the interpretation of Rule 25 or the proviso to Section 29, as the matter was remitted for representation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration was valid without providing prior information to the petitioner as per Rule 25 of the CGST Rules, 2017? 2. Whether the cancellation of GST registration was valid without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as provided under the proviso to Section 29 of the CGST Rules, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the cancellation of his GST registration was invalid because the authorities failed to provide him with prior information as mandated by Rule 25 of the CGST Rules, 2017. Furthermore, he contended that he was not given an opportunity of hearing, which is a mandatory procedural requirement under the proviso to Section 29 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner relied on a previous order in WPMS No. 482 of 2023 for the proposition that his petition should be decided similarly. Revenue/State's arguments: The learned State Counsel had no objection to the writ petition being decided in terms of the order passed in WPMS No. 482 of 2023.