The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in M/s Shraddha Overseas Private Limited & Anr. v. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax [M.A.T No.1860 of 2022 dated December 16, 2022] set aside the order passed by the Revenue Department cancelling Goods and Services Tax (“GST”) Registrations of the assessee on the grounds of suspicion. Held that, the transaction cannot be suspected merely on the grounds that the GST Registration of the other-end dealer was cancelled with retrospective effect.
Facts:
M/s Shraddha Overseas Private Limited (“the Appellant”) entered into a business transaction of transporting the goods with M/s Suraj Enterprises in October, 2018. The tax authorities of Utaganda conducted two separate enquiries in the premises of M/s. Suraj Enterprise on November 14, 2019 and February 17, 2020 and concluded that M/s Suraj Enterprises was a no existing dealer and had no registration. Thus, a doubt had arisen in the mind of the Revenue Department (“the Respondent”) with regard to the genuineness of the transaction between the Appellant and M/s Suraj Enterprises.
The Appellant stated that in the Show Cause Notice (“SCN”) issued to M/s. Suraj Enterprise, there was no such allegation against the Appellant and though several grounds were raised by the Respondent, none of the grounds were considered against the Appellant.
The Appellant submitted that, to conclude that the other end dealer is a non-existing dealer, there should be material to show that on the date when the Appellant had transaction with them, there was no valid registration. Also, if the cancellation of the registration of the other end dealer is by way of retrospective cancellation, then the question would be as to whether it would affect the transaction done by the Appellant, more particularly when the Appellant have been able to show that the payments for the transaction have been done through banking challans.
Hence, this petition has been filed challenging an order passed by the learned Single Bench
declining to grant interim relief sought.
Issue:
Whether the cancellation of registration of the other end dealer by retrospective cancellation will affect their transaction with the Appellant?
Held:
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in M.A.T No.1860 of 2022 held as under:
- Opined that, the order passed by the Respondent is a non-speaking order in the sense that there is no independent finding rendered by the Respondent qua the allegation against the Appellant.
- Noted that, the other end dealer’s registration was cancelled with retrospective effect.
- Remanded the matter back to the Respondent to make fresh consideration after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the Appellant.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.