Delhi High Court
M/S Maa Jhandewali Traders vs Principal Commissioner Of Goods And ... on 25 January, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Sachdeva
Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 25.01.2024
+ W.P.(C) 1131/2024 & CM APPL. 4786/2024
M/S MAA JHANDEWALI TRADERS ..... Petitioner
versus
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF GOODS AND
SERVICE TAX NORTH DELHI ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Pranay Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Gibran Naushad, Senior Standing Counsel for
CBIC
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks restoration of the GST registration of the
petitioner that has been cancelled by order dated 21.07.2023.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the show cause
notice dated 28.06.2023 which led to the impugned cancellation order
did not contain the very basic details. He submits that the show cause
notice was issued on the ground that the registration was obtained by
mis-statement or suppression of facts. He submits that the show cause
notice does not contain any specifics of the alleged fraud, mis-
statement or suppression. He submits that the show cause notice
required the petitioner to appear before the signatory of the notice,
however, neither any name nor designation of the officer was
disclosed in the show cause notice.
3. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing
for the respondent. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up
for final disposal today.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the show cause
notice is uploaded on the portal which is accessible by the tax-payers.
He submits that on the portal all information is also uploaded with
regard to the detailed reasons, etc. He submits that the action was
taken because the Deputy Commissioner (AE) CGST, Delhi (North)
had informed that the petitioner firm was non-existent at the subject
address. He submits that all this information was available on the
portal and accessible to the tax-payers.
5. This is disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner who
submits that apart from the show cause notice which is being annexed
as Annexure-P1, there was no other information available on the
portal.
6. Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner had replied to the
show cause notice and requested for 4-5 days' time to respond to the
show cause notice and had stated that the petitioner is unable to
personally attend being out of station.
7. We also notice that after this response, there was no further
response submitted by the petitioner.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent has produced a screenshot
of the portal accessible by the concerned Inspector wherein detailed
reason has been mentioned. He has also produced a copy of the report
received from the Deputy Commissioner (AE) CGST. Both these
documents are taken on record.
9. In contrast, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a copy of
the rent agreement dated 27.12.2022 in respect of the subject property.
10. We notice that the petitioner has not filed a detailed response to
the show cause notice.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that
petitioner has already filed an application for revocation of the
cancellation and the period prescribed for disposal of the same is 30
days which is yet to lapse.
12. Normally, we would have set aside the show cause notice
because of the infirmities pointed out by learned counsel for the
petitioner. However, in the facts of the present case since petitioner
has responded to the show cause notice and filed a reply which is not
in commensurate with the reasons mentioned for the cancellation, we
are of the view that an opportunity needs to be granted to the
petitioner to file a detailed response to the show cause notice and
thereafter for the authorities to re-adjudicate the show cause notice.
13. In view of the above, the cancellation order dated 21.07.2023 is
set aside. Petitioner is granted one week's time to file a detailed
response to the show cause notice. Thereafter, the authority shall
dispose of the show cause notice within a period of 30 days. Petitioner
shall also be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing.
14. It would be open to the competent authority to have a fresh
inspection carried out of the subject property, if so required.
15. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
16. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor
commented upon the merits of the contention of either party. All
rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JANUARY 25, 2024 RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
'rs'
