Harsh Wadhwani Proprietor Vijay Laxmi Trade Company vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax Raipur-8

Facts

The petitioner, Harsh Wadhwani, proprietor of Vijay Laxmi Trade Company, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (Respondent No. 1) for cancellation of registration. The notice alleged non-compliance with Rule 21(a) and 21(b) of the Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued without supplying supporting documents. While the respondents later supplied documents related to Rule 21(a), no specific invoices or bills pertaining to non-supply of goods were provided. The petitioner expressed readiness to file fresh objections. The respondents stated that during an inspection, it was found that the petitioner did not conduct business at the declared place of business, and no documents were found there, despite the petitioner filing GST returns with invoice details.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by allowing the petitioner to file fresh objections before Respondent No. 1 within three days from the date of the order. Respondent No. 1 was directed to consider and decide these fresh objections, along with the show cause notice dated 09.10.2025 (Annexure P-1), within a further period of three weeks. The decision was to be made in accordance with the law and rules, taking into account all objections raised by the petitioner. The Court did not delve into the merits of the allegations or the validity of the show cause notice itself, opting for a procedural resolution.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show cause notice for cancellation of registration, issued without providing specific supporting documents pertaining to alleged non-supply of goods, is valid, as per Rule 21(a) and 21(b) of the Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was issued without supplying necessary documents, and even after the petition was filed, specific invoices or bills related to the alleged non-supply of goods were not provided. The petitioner sought liberty to file fresh objections and for the respondents to decide them within a timeframe. Respondents' contention: The respondents stated that while the petitioner filed GST returns, an inspection revealed no business activity or documents at the declared place of business. They agreed to decide any fresh objections filed by the petitioner in accordance with the law.