The Allahabad High Court in the case Hindustan Paper Machinery Industries v. Commissioner Cgst And 2 Others observed and has held that tax cases where the facts are undisputed and there are issues of jurisdiction and the violation of principles of natural justice s involved, it may not be relegated to the Authorities.
The court in the case observed and has held that the cases where the minimum statutory compliances have been made are generally relegated to the forum of alternate remedy.
The bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad in the case observed and has held that relegating the petitioner to the forum of alternative remedy in face of undisputed facts noted above may be of no real use or purpose. Thus, the writ court regularly relegates petitioners specifically in tax matters, to the forum of the statutory remedy of appeal where minimum compliances of law have been made.
However, the writ Court is equally inclined to offer interference to ensure due adherence to the rule of law both by the assessee as also the revenue authority wherein the lack of jurisdiction or violation of principle of natural justice.
In the present case, the court issued the show cause notice to the petitioner for cancellation of GST registration on grounds of wrongful availment or utilization of input tax credit or refund of tax.
The petitioner responded by stating that a survey had been conducted by the DGGI, Delhi and its case is under investigation and the said matter has not been finalized by the DGGI, Delhi.
Further, it was stated before the court that the writ plea moved before the High Court and since the matter was sub judice, petitioner requested that the suspension be kept in abeyance.
Therefore, the GST Authority in the case cancelled the registration of the petitioner with retrospective effect from the date of the show cause notice. The court in the case observed that the order of cancellation of GST registration was wholly non-speaking as no violation of statutory requirement was stated in the order.
The court stated that the authority failed mention the details of the tax invoices, period for which ITC was wrongly availed and other details. It has been held by the court that until and unless the show-cause notice had made any fact allegation against the petitioner, the vagueness of the reply may remain inconsequential.
The court observed that the cancellation of registration has serious impact on a business entity and it has the effect of closure of business as, no tax invoice may be issued, and no return may easily be filed if the registration is cancelled.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed and has directed that suspension of registration of the petitioner may remain in force for a period of one month during which the Respondent authority may issue a fresh show cause notice for cancellation of registrar. Accordingly, the court disposed of the writ plea.