AMESH BASUMATARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Dr. A. Todi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned standing counsel for the GST.

(2.) This writ petition is filed impugning the order dtd. 11/11/2021 passed by the respondent No. 4, namely, the Superintendent of Central Taxes, Dhemaji- 2, North Lakhimpur Range, Tezpur Division, Assam whereby the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled in terms of the provisions of Sec. 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the impugned order of cancellation dtd. 11/11/2021 under Sec. 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. However, the said appeal also came to be dismissed as being time barred by the Appellate Authority, namely, respondent No. 3 vide order dt. 16/1/2023, which is also impugned in the writ petition.

(3.) The petitioner is a proprietor of a business and is executing works contract as well as supplies under the name and style M/S Basumatary E-Hero, having its Office at Bejguri, Somkong, Dhemaji, Assam. According to the petitioner, the order of cancellation of the GST registration was passed without any notice to the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner came to be informed that a notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner in Form GST REG-17/31 vide Reference No. ZA181021000929T dtd. 1/10/2021. The said show cause was purportedly issued under Sec. 29(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Rules 22(1) and Rules 21A(2A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. However, vide the said notice, the GST registration of the petitioner was suspended on 1/10/2021 itself, namely, the date of issuance of the show cause notice. The petitioner is aggrieved that there was no personal notice served upon the petitioner prior to suspension and cancellation of the GST registration rather a notice was simply uploaded in the website of the department. According to the petitioner, such actions of the respondent authority are in complete violation of the Rules of natural justice as well as the provisions of the GST Act and the Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this action of the respondent authorities is punitive in nature and has the effect of putting the business of the petitioner to a complete halt as without the GST registration he is unable to continue with his business as it is only source of his livelihood.