Rajasthan High Court
Msn Insulations vs Union Of India on 2 May, 2022
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6513/2022
MSN Insulations, Through Its Partner Deen Preet Singh, Aged 35
Years, Resident Of E535, Riico Industrial Area, Chpanki, Bhiwadi,
District Alwar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Revenue, Central Board Of Indirect Taxes, New Delhi.
2. The Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax,
Commissionerate, A-Block, Surya Nagar, Alwar, Rajasthan
3. The Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Service
Tax, Commissionerate, A-Block, Surya Nagar, Alwar,
Rajasthan.
4. Mark Splendour Nonwovens Private Limited, Through Its
Manager Hawa Singh S/o Shri Ram Dev Jat, R/o E-535,
Riico Industrial Area, Chopanki, Bhiwadi, District-Alwar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Daksh Pareek Advocate with Mr.
Arjun Singh Advocate.
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment / Order
02/05/2022
Heard.
By this petition, the petitioner has assailed legality and
validity of show cause notice for cancellation of registration passed
on 06.04.2022.
Apart from raising factual issues with regard to justification
for exercise of power, one of the main submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the power to suspend registration
during the pendency of proceedings for cancellation of
registration, as envisaged under Section 29 of the Central Goods
and Serives Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as' the Act of
(2 of 3) [CW-6513/2022]
2017'), a drastic power has been conferred on the authority under
the proviso where the registration may remain suspended even
during the pendency of the proceedings relating to cancellation of
registration. He would submit that as the effect of suspension of
registration during the pendency of the proceedings is drastic in
nature, the authority ought to have decided the matter one way or
the other, but till date, no decision has been taken in the matter.
He further contends that even proviso to Sub-Section 1 of Section
29 of the Act of 2017 may not be attracted in the present case.
We find that the authority in purported exercise of power
under Section 29 of Sub-Section 1 of the Act of 2017, while
initiating proceeding for cancellation of registration has resorted to
its power to suspend registration during the pendency of the
proceedings and the petitioner has taken substantial grounds in
reply to show cause notice. His contention that in the present
case, proviso may not be attracted, would also require
consideration.
The power being drastic in nature, which has the effect of
bringing to a grinding halt, a running business, the authority is
required to decide the matter at the earliest where it takes
recourse to its power of suspension of registration during
pendency of the proceedings for cancellation of registration.
Even though reply was filed on 07-08/04/2022, it has been
canvased before us that till date, authority has not passed any
order.
If a drastic power of suspension of registration even during
pendency of the proceedings has been conferred on the authority
under the Statute, the proceedings itself are required to be
brought to its logical conclusion one way or the other in a time
(3 of 3) [CW-6513/2022]
bound manner and merely because the Statute does not provide
any limitation for completion of proceedings, the authority cannot
be allowed to sit over the matter and leave the person to suffer
suspension of registration and all consequences to follow where
the entire operations are brought to suspension.
In the conspectus of aforesaid consideration and the material
before us, we are of the view that the authority was required to
decide the matter one way or the other within a reasonable time.
Reply having been filed on 07-08/04/2022, the matter ought to be
decided at the earliest, which has not been done till date.
Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, we are inclined to
direct respondent No.3 to conclude the proceedings within an
outer limit of 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this
order. A speaking order shall be passed in the matter, taking into
consideration the reply of the petitioner including whether the
proviso to Sub-Section 1 of Section 29 of the Act of 2017 could be
taken recourse to in the facts and circumstances of the present
case as it is not a case relating to cancellation of registration filed
by the registered person, but proceedings initiated by the
authority under the Act of 2017. If the decision is not taken within
a period of 15 days, the order of suspension of registration shall
come to an automatic end.
Needless to emphasize that in case any order adverse to the
interest of the petitioner is passed, he would be at liberty to
challenge the same.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ
Sanjay Kumawat-16
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
