Facts of the Case

The Petitioner, Nishant Tandon, was a partner in M/s Jai Ambay Pharmacy, a firm registered under GST bearing GSTIN 07AANFJ2255K1Z2. The firm was dissolved mutually by its partners on 01.07.2021. Subsequently, a request was made for cancellation of GST registration.

A Show Cause Notice dated 14.06.2021 was issued by the Respondent proposing cancellation of GST registration due to change in constitution and dissolution of the partnership. Thereafter, an order dated 15.03.2022 cancelled the GST registration retrospectively with effect from 16.08.2017 due to alleged non-response to the SCN.

Later, a demand order dated 25.04.2024 was passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 / Delhi GST Act, 2017, raising a demand of ₹67,328.

The Petitioner claimed inability to access GST portal data due to deactivation of user ID, thereby preventing him from accessing returns, notices, and documents necessary for filing an appeal.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to reactivation of GST portal access or copies of documents after cancellation of GST registration.
  2. Whether denial of access to GST records affects the Petitioner’s right to pursue appellate remedies.
  3. Whether relief can be granted to enable effective exercise of statutory remedies despite procedural lapses. 

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The GST registration was cancelled pursuant to request of partners and not due to fault attributable to the Petitioner.
  • The firm had responded to the Show Cause Notice; however, due to lack of access to the GST portal, proof could not be produced.
  • The Petitioner is unable to access returns, notices, and other documents due to deactivation of the GST user ID.
  • Access to such documents is essential to challenge the demand order under Section 73 and to pursue appellate remedies.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The Respondent contended that no reply to the Show Cause Notice was submitted by the firm.
  • The cancellation order clearly records non-submission of reply.
  • However, the Respondent fairly submitted that if the Petitioner applies for documents, the same can be provided.

Court’s Findings / Order

  • The Court observed that the Petitioner failed to substantiate claims regarding submission of reply to the SCN.
  • However, the Court acknowledged that access to documents is necessary for pursuing appellate remedies.
  • The Court allowed the alternate relief and directed:
    • The Respondent shall provide physical or soft copies of requested GST documents, if available, within one week.
    • If the Petitioner files an appeal within four weeks, the same shall be considered without being affected by limitation (delay).
  • The writ petition was accordingly disposed of. 

Important Clarifications

  • Even where GST registration is cancelled retrospectively, taxpayers retain the right to access documents necessary for legal remedies.
  • The Court emphasized facilitation of appellate remedies over procedural technicalities.
  • Relief may be granted in writ jurisdiction to ensure access to justice, even if primary relief is not granted.

Link to download the order -  https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/VIB13082024CW112312024_142657.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.