Case Details: Imagine Marketing Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner CGST Appeals II Delhi (2025) 37 Centax 141 (Del.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Prathiba M. Singh & Shail Jain, JJ.
- Shri Ashwini Chandrasekaran, Ms Priyanka Rathi & Ms Priyanshi Chakraborty, Advs., for the Petitioner.
- Ms Anushree Narain, SSC, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner-assessee was a registered person whose registration was cancelled retrospectively from the date of issuance of a show cause notice without assigning reasons. The assessee was operating from leased premises at Hauz Khas and continued operations from the retained portion of the premises, as supported by lease documents. The show cause notice proposing cancellation granted 30 days to submit a reply, and the assessee filed a reply enclosing lease documents and referring to returns available on the portal. The cancellation order stated that the reply was not considerable, ignored the documents placed on record, and cancelled the registration from the show cause notice date without explaining the effective date. Thereafter, an application for revocation under Section 30 read with the Delhi GST Act was filed, for which only seven working days were granted, and although a reply along with documents was submitted, the same was not considered, and revocation was rejected. The appeal filed against the said orders was dismissed without examination of the replies or documents. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the cancellation order did not disclose any reason for retrospective cancellation or for discarding the documents submitted by the assessee. It further held that rejection of the revocation application suffered from non-consideration of the reply and supporting documents. The Court also held that the appellate order was erroneous, having sustained the cancellation without examining the record. Consequently, the High Court set aside the cancellation order, the revocation rejection order, and the appellate order, restored the registration, and directed fresh adjudication of the show cause notice after hearing and considering the replies, with costs imposed on the department recoverable from the concerned superintendent.
