Facts of the Case
The petitioner, M/s. Pankaj Cottage,
challenged the order cancelling its GST registration passed under Section 29
of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The
cancellation order was issued on 04.04.2022 on the ground of non-filing
of GST returns.
The petitioner contended that although an
electronic show cause notice was allegedly issued before cancellation, it never
came to its notice. Upon learning about the cancellation, the petitioner
applied for revocation under Section 30 of the CGST Act, but the
application was rejected as time-barred. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an
appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, which remained pending.
Simultaneously, the petitioner approached the High Court challenging the
legality of the cancellation proceedings themselves.
Issues Involved
- Whether a GST registration can be cancelled on the basis of a show
cause notice issued in Form GST REG-31 instead of Form GST
REG-17.
- Whether a vague and incomplete show cause notice satisfies the
principles of natural justice.
- Whether cancellation proceedings initiated in an incorrect
statutory form are legally sustainable.
- Whether the cancellation order deserves to be quashed despite the
pendency of a statutory appeal.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner submitted that:
- The show cause notice was illegally issued in Form GST REG-31,
whereas Rule 22 of the CGST Rules specifically requires issuance of
Form GST REG-17 for cancellation proceedings.
- Form GST REG-31 is prescribed only for suspension of registration
under Rule 21A and cannot be used for cancellation.
- The notice failed to specify material facts, allegations or reasons
justifying cancellation.
- The notice was vague, incomplete and violated principles of natural
justice.
- Delay in filing GST returns occurred because of severe financial
hardship and was never intentional.
- Reliance was placed on:
- Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing vs State of Gujarat
- Sing Traders vs State of Gujarat
The petitioner argued that vague show cause notices
and non-speaking cancellation orders have consistently been held invalid by the
Gujarat High Court.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Revenue contended that:
- Sections 29 and 30 of the CGST Act provide a complete
statutory mechanism regarding cancellation and revocation of registration.
- Since the petitioner admittedly failed to furnish GST returns,
cancellation was legally justified.
- The notices were system-generated and sufficiently conveyed the
reason for proposed cancellation.
- Fiscal statutes require strict interpretation in favour of revenue.
- Reliance was placed upon:
- Suguna Cutpiece Center vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) GST
- M/s. M.S. Retail Private Limited vs Union of India
- Rajdhanai Security Force Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India
The respondents therefore requested dismissal of
the writ petition.
Court Order / Findings
The Kerala High Court allowed the writ petition and
quashed the cancellation order.
The Court held:
1. Wrong
Statutory Form Used
The Court observed that Form GST REG-31 is
prescribed only for proceedings relating to suspension of registration under Rule
21A.
For cancellation proceedings, the law specifically
mandates issuance of Form GST REG-17 under Rule 22.
Since the proceedings were initiated using the
wrong statutory form, the cancellation order suffered from lack of
jurisdiction.
2. Mandatory
Procedure Cannot Be Ignored
The Court reiterated the settled principle that
when a statute prescribes a particular procedure, authorities must strictly
follow that procedure.
Reliance was placed upon the Supreme Court judgment
in:
- Babu Verghese vs Bar Council of Kerala (1999) 3 SCC 422
which reiterates that if the law prescribes a
manner of doing an act, it must be done only in that manner.
3. Show
Cause Notice Was Vague
The Court observed that the notice merely stated:
"Failure to furnish returns for a continuous
period of six months"
without furnishing complete particulars or specific
allegations.
Such a vague notice failed to provide adequate
opportunity of defence and therefore violated principles of natural justice.
4. Gujarat
High Court Judgments Approved
The Court agreed with the reasoning adopted in:
- Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing vs State of Gujarat
- Sing Traders vs State of Gujarat
holding that vague show cause notices cannot
sustain cancellation proceedings.
5. Fiscal
Interpretation Argument Rejected
The Court rejected the argument that taxing
statutes must always be interpreted in favour of the Revenue.
It observed that Sections 29 and 30 concern
procedural safeguards relating to cancellation of registration and are not
exemption provisions requiring strict interpretation in favour of Revenue.
The Court referred to:
- Commissioner of Customs vs Dilip Kumar & Company
- Government of Kerala vs Mother Superior Adoration Convent
to explain the correct principles governing
interpretation of taxing statutes.
Final
Directions
The High Court:
- Quashed the GST cancellation order.
- Directed restoration of the petitioner's registration.
- Clarified that restoration would not absolve the petitioner from
statutory liabilities.
- Directed the petitioner to file all pending GST returns and pay
applicable tax, interest, late fee and penalty within two weeks after
restoration of registration.
Important Clarification
This judgment establishes that:
- GST registration cannot be cancelled through proceedings initiated
in the wrong statutory form.
- Form GST REG-17 is mandatory for
cancellation proceedings.
- Form GST REG-31 cannot substitute Form GST
REG-17.
- Vague and non-speaking show cause notices violate natural justice.
- Cancellation orders passed without following the prescribed
statutory procedure are liable to be quashed.
- Restoration of registration does not waive outstanding tax
liabilities.
Sections Involved
- Section 29, CGST Act, 2017 –
Cancellation of Registration
- Section 30, CGST Act, 2017 –
Revocation of Cancellation
- Section 107, CGST Act, 2017 – Appeals
- Rule 22, CGST Rules, 2017
- Rule 21A, CGST Rules, 2017
- Form GST REG-17
- Form GST REG-31
Link to
Download the Order https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1782892293_64.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general
information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify
the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal,
professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim
all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been
prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment