Click to Nomination Visit: tiolawards.in

GST - Cancellation of registration is not tenable where neither reason is given nor notice is served: HC

Service Matter - Re-agitation of issue settled by CAT cannot be sustained where limitation provided in Section 21 & 27 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 is exceeded: HC

2021-TIOL-2310-HC-KOL-GST

Chatterjee Constructions Vs State of West Bengal

GST - Petitioner has challenged the impugned order of final intimation on the ground of jurisdiction of Officer, who has issued impugned notice as well as that the impugned notices were issued in noncompliance of statutory formalities under Section 61 r/w Rule 99 of West Bengal GST Acts and Rules as well as Sections 73,74 and 75 of West Bengal GST Act, 2017 - Petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case for interim order in matter as well as issue involve in this petition require affidavit from respondents for final adjudication - Respondents are directed to file affidavit-in opposition on the ground of jurisdiction of Officer, who has issued impugned notice as well as that the impugned notices were issued in noncompliance of statutory formalities: HC

- Matter listed: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-2309-HC-AHM-GST

Arsh Traders Vs CTO

CGST - THE assessee is a firm engaged in dealing in all types of scrap and is registered under the CGST Act - In the relevant period, an SCN was issued to the assessee for cancellation of its registration on grounds that the same was obtained by means of fraud, willful misstatement and suppression of the facts - The proprietor of the assessee-firm was directed to appear before the Revenue despite not being issued a physical notice - Subsequently, the assessee received a communication cancelling it's registration, without mentioning any reason for cancellation and without following the procedure specified in the CGST Rules.

Held - it emerges from the material on record that the application for revocation has been preferred by the petitioner on 16.08.2019, no procedure has been followed thereafter by the proper Officer and he has chosen not to issue any notice to show cause indicating his intention of rejection - When the statutory Rules provide for prescribed limit, he could not have simply sat tight over this application without doing anything in that regard and without fail he shall need to complete this process within one week from the date of receipt of the copy - At this stage, AGP has drawn attention of this Court that in event he is required to reject the request of revocation of cancellation, he would be obligated to issue the notice for a period of 7 days and therefore more time will be desirable - Noticing the fact that it is only after he decides not to accede to the request of revocation of cancellation that such a stage would come at that eventuality be also taken note of once the Officer chose not to allow the request straightaway he would have further period of 4 (four) weeks, 1 (one) week for issuance of notice and availing time to petitioner of one week as also to allow him representation and then 2 (two) weeks thereafter for him to decide finally - However, in the event he is agreed with the request of revocation of cancellation, the same shall be decided in a week's time: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-2311-HC-RAJ-SERVICE

Bhawani Singh Vs UoI

Service Matter - The petitioner, filed the present petition to challenge an order passed by the CAT in dismissing the Miscellaneous Application filed by the petitioner - The petitioner had been employed as a Computer Operator in the office of the CIT-II, Jaipur - The petitioner and four others had approched the CAT to challenge the termination of their employment and also sought directions to not replace them by any other source except by way of regular appointment - The petitioner also claimed to have filed a Contempt Petition against the CAT, but the same was dismissed.

Held - The petitioner has made an attempt to reagitate the issue which was concluded by the Tribunal with dismissal of his contempt petition in the year 2017 - The Tribunal specifically stated that the conduct of the petitioner does not entitle him for grant of prayer requested by him on account of the fact that he never showed any willingness to resume duties in the office of respondent which is reflected from the fact that inspite of passing of favorable order by CAT on 29.10.2012, he has never appeared at the office nor did he file any execution application or raise any grievance - Merely on 22.10.2013 a letter was filed which was neither pursued nor any attempt to join was made - It was only in the year 2018 that the petitioner has again re-agitated the issue contrary to provisions of Section 21 and 27 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 which has set out limitation, qua execution and raising grievance against any cause, order etc. The act of petitioner in approaching the Tribunal after six years is time barred as per the provisions of Section 21 and 27 of Act of 1985 - Hence the order of the Tribunal is upheld: HC

- Writ petition dismissed: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT