Court Nullifies Retrospective GST Registration Cancellation Due to Lack of Specific SCN and Natural Justice Violation
Issue
Whether the retrospective cancellation of a Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration is valid when the show cause notice (SCN) did not specifically mention the intention of retrospective cancellation, and the assessee was unable to respond or attend the hearing due to a genuine health condition.
Brief Facts
An assessee’s GST registration was cancelled retrospectively on the grounds of wrongful availment of input tax credit. The assessee did not file a reply to the SCN or attend the personal hearing. The assessee claimed that the proprietor, who was a wheelchair-bound person, was unable to respond or attend due to his severe health condition.
Decision
The court held that if the SCN does not explicitly propose a retrospective cancellation, the final order cancelling the registration retrospectively is not sustainable. The court also recognized that the assessee’s inability to respond due to a genuine health condition was a valid reason for not availing the opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside. The court directed that the assessee be given a fresh opportunity to file a reply to the SCN and be afforded a personal hearing. After considering the assessee’s reply and hearing, a comprehensive and reasoned order must be passed.
Key Takeaways
- Specific SCN is Mandatory: An order for retrospective cancellation of a GST registration is invalid if the SCN does not clearly mention the intention to cancel the registration with retrospective effect.
- Adherence to Natural Justice: The principle of natural justice, which includes the right to be heard (audi alteram partem), must be strictly followed. The authorities cannot pass an order without considering a valid reason for the assessee’s non-appearance or non-response.
- Due Consideration for Health Issues: A genuine health condition of the proprietor that prevents them from responding to the SCN or attending a hearing is a valid ground for a new opportunity.
- Reasoned Order: Any final decision by the authorities must be a comprehensive and reasoned order, taking into account the assessee’s submission.
| “10. | It is apparent to note that non-payment of dues for a period of three months is not a prescribed ground for cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration. |
| 11. | It is also important to note that the impugned order sets out a tabular statement, which indicates that no amount has been determined as payable by the petitioner. The Central Tax, State Tax, Integrated Tax and Cess payable by the petitioner is reflected as, “0.0”. |
| 12. | Apart from the above, the impugned order has also been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Although the SCN called upon the petitioner to appear for a personal hearing at the appointed date and time, no such date or time was indicated. Thus, in effect the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to be heard. |
| 13. | In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order. The respondents are directed to restore the petitioner’s GST registration forthwith. “ |
| “ | 8. It is apparent from the above that the reasons as set out in the impugned order were not the reasons as set out in the SCN. Further, the SCN also did not propose cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration with retrospective effect from 11.09.2017. |
| 9. | The petitioner filed an appeal against the impugned order cancelling its registration. However, the same was rejected by the appellate authority by the order dated 14.05.2024 on the ground that the petitioner’s appeal was barred by limitation. |
| 10. | As noted above, the reason for which the petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled was not reflected in the SCN. Although, the petitioner claims that it did not receive the SCN, it is apparent that even if it had, the same provided it no opportunity to respond to the reasons as set out in the impugned order cancelling its GST registration. |
| 11. | As noted above, the petitioner is not aggrieved by the cancellation of its GST registration as it had closed down its business. The petitioner is, essentially, aggrieved by cancelling of its GST registration with retrospective effect. |
| 12. | The present petition was listed on 29.08.2024 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought time to take instructions. |
| 13. | The learned counsel for the respondents states that the respondents have no objection if the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration is made operative with effect from the date of the SCN, that is, with effect from 24.05.2022. |
| 14. | In view of above, the present petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner’s GST registration stands cancelled with effect from 24.05.2022 (being the date on which it was suspended) and not with retrospective effect from 11.09.2017. |
| 15. | The impugned order is modified to the aforesaid extent.” |
“1-5……….
6. Neither the show cause notice, nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation. In fact, in our view, order dated 13.07.2022 does not qualify as an order of cancellation of registration.
7-8……
9. In terms of Section 29(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the proper officer may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit if the circumstances set out in the said sub-section are satisfied. The registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically. It can be cancelled only if the proper officer deems it fit to do so. Such satisfaction cannot be subjective but must be based on some objective criteria. Merely, because a taxpayer has not filed the returns for someperiod does not mean that the taxpayer’s registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when the returns were filed and the taxpayer was compliant.
10. It is important to note that, according to the respondent, one of the consequences for cancelling a tax payer’s registration with retrospective effect is that the taxpayer’s customers are denied the input tax credit availed in respect of the supplies made by the tax payer during such period. Although, we do not consider it apposite to examine this aspect but assuming that the respondent’s contention in this regard is correct, it would follow that the proper officer is also required to consider this aspect while passing any order for cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect. Thus, a taxpayer’s registration can be cancelled with retrospective effect only where such consequences are intended and are warranted.
11. The show cause notice does not even state that the registration is liable to be cancelled from a retrospective date.
12. The petition is allowed. The impugned show cause notice dated 07.04.2022, order of cancellation dated 13.07.2022 and the order in appeal dated 29.12.2023 are accordingly set aside. GST registration of the petitioner is restored, subject to petitioner filing requisite returns upto date. ”
“1-3……
4. Show Cause Notice dated 04.09.2021 was issued to the Petitioner seeking to cancel its registration. However, the Show Cause Notice also does not put the petitioner to notice that the registration is liable to be cancelled retrospectively. Accordingly, the petitioner had no opportunity to even object to the retrospective cancellation of the registration.
5. Further, the impugned order dated 15.12.2021 passed on the Show Cause Notice dated 04.09.2021 does not give any reasons for cancellation. It, however, states that the registration is liable to be cancelled for the following reason “whereas no reply to the show cause notice has been submitted”. However, the said order in itself is contradictory. The order states “reference to your reply dated 15.12.2021 in response to the notice to show cause dated 04.09.2021” and the reason stated for the cancellation is “whereas no reply to notice show cause has been submitted”. The order further states that effective date of cancellation of registration is 01.07.2017 i.e., a retrospective date.
6. Neither the show cause notice, nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation. In fact, in our view, order dated 15.12.2021 does not qualify as an order of cancellation of registration. On one hand, it states that the registration is liable to be cancelled and on the other, in the column at the bottom there are no dues stated to be due against the petitioner and the table shows nil demand.
7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the said order reflected that the GST registration of petitioner stands cancelled from 01.07.2017 even though returns thereafter have been filed by the Petitioner.
8. He further submits that the petitioner is no longer interested in continuing the business and the business has been discontinued.
9. In terms of Section 29(2) of the Act, the proper officer may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit if the circumstances set out in the said sub-section are satisfied. Registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically. It can be cancelled only if the proper officer deems it fit to do so. Such satisfaction cannot be subjective but must be based on some objective criteria. Merely, because a taxpayer has not filed the returns for some period does not mean that the taxpayer’s registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when the returns were filed and the taxpayer was compliant.
10. It is important to note that, according to the respondent, one of the consequences for cancelling a tax payer’s registration with retrospective effect is that the taxpayer’s customers are denied the input tax credit availed in respect of the supplies made by the tax payer during such period. Although, we do not consider it apposite to examine this aspect but assuming that the respondent’s contention in required to consider this aspect while passing any order for cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect. Thus, a taxpayer’s registration can be cancelled with retrospective effect only where such consequences are intended and are warranted.”