Topic
GST registration in India governs the legal obligation of businesses to enroll under the Goods and Services Tax regime, with cancellation subject to procedural fairness under the CGST Act and constitutional rights.
Uttarakhand High Court rules that GST recovery orders passed without affording a personal hearing violate natural justice under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act. The Court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication, reinforcing that portal notices alone do not suffice as valid service of hearing opportunities.
Gauhati HC sets aside a GST registration cancellation order for lacking reasoned justification, reinforcing that Rule 22 CGST Rules mandates speaking orders even in default cases. The ruling underscores that natural justice principles apply to administrative actions under tax laws, ensuring taxpayers receive clear grounds for adverse decisions.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that retrospective cancellation of GST registration under Section 29 of the CGST Act requires explicit disclosure of such intent in the show-cause notice. Failure to do so violates principles of natural justice, rendering the cancellation order void. The decision reinforces procedural fairness as a non-negotiable safeguard in tax adjudication.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that the constitutional right to carry on any trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) cannot be extinguished by the mere lapse of time in filing a GST registration appeal. Even if the statutory limitation period under the MGST Act has expired, the registration must be restored upon payment of pending dues, ensuring that procedural delays do not destroy fundamental economic rights.
The Madras High Court has ruled that an ex parte GST assessment under Section 62 is void if the assessee never received notice because their registration was cancelled without proper service. This upholds natural justice by requiring actual notice, not just procedural compliance, and mandates release of attached bank accounts pending fresh adjudication with a fair hearing.
Uttarakhand High Court rules that GST registration revocation must be reconsidered if a taxpayer deposits wrongly availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) with proof. The tax authority is directed to decide afresh within four weeks of representation, ensuring procedural fairness in GST compliance.
Calcutta High Court rules that GST registration cancellation for non-filing of returns cannot be permanent without affording an opportunity to comply. The court directed restoration of registration within four weeks upon filing pending returns and payment of dues, emphasizing that revenue interests are best served by enabling compliance rather than exclusion.
Madras High Court rules that suspending GST registration under Rule 21A(2A) of the TNGST Act without completing adjudication is procedurally unfair. The court mandates restoration of registration upon compliance with conditions like filing pending returns and cash tax payments, reinforcing due process in tax administration.
Bombay High Court rules that GST registration cancellation without assigning reasons breaches principles of natural justice, mandating tax authorities to issue reasoned orders. The judgment reinforces procedural fairness in administrative actions, impacting businesses and tax practitioners across India.
Uttarakhand High Court holds that GST registration cancellation for non-filing of returns must permit revocation upon deposit of dues and submission of pending returns.
Bombay High Court quashes retrospective GST cancellation order for lack of reasons, affirming natural justice and procedural fairness under CGST Act.
Madras High Court holds that GST registration cancellation for non-filing due to genuine financial hardship must be remediable, not punitive, subject to compliance conditions.