The petitioner assails an appellate order rejecting the appeal against cancellation of the petitioner`s GST registration and also such order of cancellation. The appellate authority cannot be faulted for rejecting the appeal in view of the language of Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. At the same time, the petitioner should not be left without remedy. This Court directed restoration of registration subject to fulfilling certain conditions

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Chandra Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for Union of India.

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 27.02.2021, whereby the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled retrospectively with effect from 01.07.2017. Petitioner also impugns Show Cause Notice dated 18.02.2021.

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 22.12.2023, whereby the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 23.09.2023, proposing a demand against the petitioner has been disposed of and a demand of Rs. 36,63,454.00 including penalty has been raised against the petitioner. The order has been passed under section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to the Act).

1. Heard Sri Shubham Agarwal, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Gaurav Mahajan, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.4.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

2. The learned Counsel for the parties submitted that a common order could dispose of all these civil applications by treating Civil Application No. 132/2024 in Writ Petition as the lead application. They submitted that all these civil applications are based on the same facts, and even the relief prayed for is the same. Accordingly, we propose to dispose of all these civil applications by a common order by treating Misc. Civil Application No. 132/2024 in Writ Petition No. 715/2023 as the lead matter.

Petitioner impugns order whereby the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled retrospectively with effect from 11.05.2022. 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. In view of the fact that Petitioner does not seek to carry on business or continue the registration, the impugned order dated 03.07.2023 is modified to the limited extent that registration shall now be treated as cancelled with effect from 16.05.2023 i.e., the date when the Petitioner closed down his business activities.

Petitioner impugns order whereby the appeal of the Petitioner seeking restoration of the GST registration has been dismissed solely on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. 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 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. In view of the aforesaid, order cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The GST registration of the petitioner is restored.

A perusal of show cause notice shows that the same has been issued on the ground that registration has been obtained by means of fraud, willful misstatement or suppressing of facts. The notice is unclear as to which of the ground applies i.e. fraud, willful misstatement or suppressing of facts. The notice neither bears the name and designation nor the signatures of the issuing authority. Form GST REG 31 admittedly has not been uploaded on the portal or sent electronically over e-mail to the petitioner but is stated to have been sent to the petitioner by physical mail, which cannot be a mode of service, as prescribed under Rule 21A. In view of the above impugned show cause notice as well as Form GST REG 31 is set aside.

This court find that the representation of the petitioner in terms of Writ Court`s order dated 4.8.2023 stand decided by the competent authority by passing the order dated 21.9.2023 and, therefore, on the face of it, no contempt is made out as the remedy before the petitioner is to challenge the said order in accordance with law.

The petitioner assails both an assessment order and a consequential bank attachment notice. The petitioner is engaged in the business of supply of bricks, blocks, tiles and ceramic goods. The petitioner asserts that he is uneducated and computer illiterate. Therefore, it is further asserted that the petitioner was unaware of proceedings commencing from the issuance of an intimation and culminating in the impugned assessment order. On perusal of the impugned assessment order, it is evident that the petitioner availed of a lower amount as ITC than the amount reflected in the auto-populated GSTR 2A return. Therefore, the impugned assessment order is quashed and the matter is remanded to the assessing officer for reconsideration.