Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

GST Registration Cannot Be Cancelled Retrospectively Without Just Cause: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment that has significant implications for businesses across India, the Delhi High Court has ruled against the retrospective cancellation of GST registration without adequate reasoning or notification. The case, W.P.(C) 381/2024, brought forward by Manisha Gupta of Varun Enterprises, contested the order dated 07.10.2022 which cancelled her GST registration retrospectively from 02.07.2017.

The Court observed, “Registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically. It can be cancelled only if the proper officer deems it fit to do so.” This pivotal statement underscores the need for objective criteria in administrative decisions affecting businesses.

The petitioner, whose business operations ceased on 28.01.2019, had filed for cancellation of her GST registration on 03.08.2022. However, she received a cancellation notice with retrospective effect, creating a legal and financial conundrum.

Highlighting the procedural flaws, the Court noted, “The impugned order...states that the registration is liable to be cancelled for the following reason ‘no response received from the taxpayer’. There is no material on record to show as to why the registration is sought to be cancelled retrospectively.”

In its judgment, the Court modified the order, stipulating the cancellation to be effective from 28.01.2019, the date the petitioner ceased her business operations. This decision is seen as a relief to many small and medium business owners who have faced similar administrative challenges.

The judgment also sheds light on the consequences of such cancellations, particularly concerning the denial of input tax credit to the taxpayers' customers. The Court stated, “...a taxpayer’s registration can be cancelled with retrospective effect only where such consequences are intended and are warranted.”

 Date of decision: 22.01.2024

MANISHA GUPTA PROP VARUN ENTERPRISES VS UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE & ORS

 

Similar News