M/S EURO PVC FABRIC vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX, SOUTH DELHI

$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 27.02.2024
+ W.P.(C) 349/2024
M/S EURO PVC FABRIC ….. Petitioner

versus

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX, SOUTH DELHI ….. Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Pranay Jain, Mr. Karan Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Ms. Anushree Narain, Standing Counsel with Ms. Nishtha Mittal, Advocate.

CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

JUDGMENT

[SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 18.01.2021, whereby the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled with effect from 31.12.2020. By the show cause notice dated 29.04.2020, petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why registration be not cancelled for the reason that “Any taxpayer other than composition taxpayer has not filed returns for a continuous period of six months.”.

2. Petitioner was required to furnish a reply within the stipulated time and it was stipulated that if he will fail to reply or to appear for personal hearing on the appointed date and time, the case would be decided ex parte.

3. A perusal of the show cause notice shows that the same did not contain any date or time or venue where the petitioner had to appear in response to the show cause notice.

4. Further, subsequent thereto, the impugned order dated 18.01.2021 has been passed, which records as under:-
“This has reference to your reply dated 09/05/2020 in response to the notice to show cause dated 29/04/2020
Whereas the undersigned has examined your reply and submissions made at the time of hearing, and is of the opinion that your registration is liable to be cancelled for following reason(s).
1..
The effective date of cancellation of your registration is 31/12/2020”

5. It is noticed that order for cancellation refers to a reply filed by the petitioner dated 09.05.2020 in response to the show cause notice dated 29.04.2020.

6. It is an admitted position that no reply to the show cause notice was filed. Surprisingly, the order of cancellation refers to a reply when no reply has been filed. Further, the order of cancellation states that the Superintendent who passed the order was of the opinion that registration is liable to be cancelled for the following reasons. In the body of the order, except for mentioning the numerical “1.”, there is nothing else stated to amount to a reason for cancellation. Further, we note that the order records that the amount payable by the petitioner based on the computation is shown as “0.0” i.e. Nil.

7. Clearly, the said order dated 18.10.2021 is not sustainable for the reason that the order clearly demonstrates ex facie non-application of mind by the concerned Superintendent, who passed the order. On the one hand, the order refers to a reply, which was never filed and on the other, it does not give any reason for cancellation.

8. The stand of the respondents is that order is a mere system generated order. This stand of the respondents further compounds the issue for the reason that system generated order clearly establishes the non-application of mind by the proper officer.

9. In view of the aforesaid, this order cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The GST registration of the petitioner is restored. The petitioner shall, however, make all necessary compliances and file the requisite returns and information inter alia in terms of Rule 23 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 along with the payment of requisite delay charges.

10. The petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.

11. We find no merit in the objection by learned counsel for respondents that there is delay in filing the subject petition and the statutory remedies of revocation has not been availed of by the petitioner. First and foremost, there is no limitation for filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before this Court. Clearly, when this Court noticed a complete non-application of mind on the part of the proper officer, no purpose would be served in relegating an individual to filing the revocation petition. Repeatedly, this Court is flooded with petitions where there are similar system generated order which ex facie demonstrate non-application of mind. Further, the petitioner is stated to be an electrician doing petty jobs.

12. Petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
FEBRUARY 27, 2024/vp

W.P.(C) 349/2024 Page 1 of 4