Facts of the Case
The petitioner, Aditya Narayan Ojha (Amit Associates),
challenged the non-compliance of an Order-in-Appeal dated 07.01.2022,
through which the appellate authority had revoked cancellation of GST
registration.
- GST
registration was originally cancelled via order dated 10.10.2021,
based on a show cause notice dated 28.09.2021 alleging fraud,
misstatement, or suppression of facts.
- The
petitioner failed to respond to the SCN or appear before the authority.
- The
cancellation order incorrectly referred to a reply that was never filed.
- On
appeal, the appellate authority:
- Found
default was not wilful
- Accepted
petitioner’s undertaking to file pending returns and pay dues
- Held
sufficient cause existed for revocation
Despite this, the department failed to implement the appellate order, leading to the present writ petition.
Issues Involved
- Whether
the revenue authorities can delay or refuse compliance with an
appellate order revoking GST registration.
- Whether
new grounds introduced in a counter-affidavit can justify
cancellation when not mentioned in the original order.
- Whether cancellation of GST registration without proper procedural compliance (including notice for inspection under Rule 25 CGST Rules) is valid.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The
appellate order dated 07.01.2022 remains unimplemented, causing
severe prejudice.
- Without
GST registration:
- Business
operations are halted
- Statutory
compliances cannot be fulfilled
- No
tax, interest, or penalty was outstanding at the time of cancellation.
- Undertaking
already given to clear any dues and file pending returns.
- No notice
of physical inspection was served.
- The
cancellation order cited only “no response received”, whereas:
- The
department later introduced non-existence of business premises in
its counter-affidavit
- It is settled law that an order cannot be improved through a counter-affidavit.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The
department intended to challenge the appellate order.
- Due
to non-constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal, it considered
filing a writ petition.
- However, no effective steps were taken despite liberty granted by the Court.
Court’s Findings
The Delhi High Court held:
- The
cancellation order dated 10.10.2021 only cited non-response, and
did not mention non-existence of business premises.
- Grounds
introduced later in the counter-affidavit are not sustainable.
- Under
Rule 25 of the CGST Rules, 2017, notice is mandatory before
inspection—this was not followed.
- The
appellate authority had already:
- Evaluated
evidence
- Accepted
undertaking
- Provided
valid reasoning for revocation
- The
revenue authorities failed to challenge the appellate order within
reasonable time, despite liberty granted.
Thus, there was no justification for non-compliance
with the appellate order.
Court Order / Final Decision
- The
writ petition was disposed of with directions:
- The
respondents shall restore GST registration of the petitioner
- Restoration must be completed within one week from receipt of the judgment
Important Clarifications
- Authorities
cannot bypass or delay compliance of appellate orders without legal
challenge.
- Counter-affidavit
cannot supplement or improve reasons missing in the
original order.
- Cancellation
of GST registration must strictly comply with procedural safeguards,
including notice requirements.
- Undertaking by taxpayer and absence of wilful default are valid grounds for revocation of cancellation.
Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2022:DHC:3053-DB/RAS02082022CW85082022_212747.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