Facts: The petitioners GST registration was cancelled due to non-filing of GSTR-3B returns for six months, based on a vague SCN issued on 23.03.2023. The cancellation order dated 06.04.2023 mentioned that no amount was payable by the petitioner, but his appeal was dismissed on 20.06.2024 solely on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner challenged the cancellation and appeal dismissal, arguing that the SCN and cancellation order reflected a lack of clarity and non-application of mind.
Decision: The court found that both the SCN and cancellation order showed non-application of mind as they failed to specify any payable amount or clear violations. The court set aside both the order of cancellation and the order dismissing the appeal on the grounds of limitation. The respondents were granted liberty to issue a fresh SCN, and the petitioner was given the right to challenge any future orders in accordance with the law.

Facts: The petitioners GST registration was cancelled due to non-filing of GSTR-3B returns for six months, based on a vague SCN issued on 23.03.2023. The cancellation order dated 06.04.2023 mentioned that no amount was payable by the petitioner, but his appeal was dismissed on 20.06.2024 solely on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner challenged the cancellation and appeal dismissal, arguing that the SCN and cancellation order reflected a lack of clarity and non-application of mind.
Decision: The court found that both the SCN and cancellation order showed non-application of mind as they failed to specify any payable amount or clear violations. The court set aside both the order of cancellation and the order dismissing the appeal on the grounds of limitation. The respondents were granted liberty to issue a fresh SCN, and the petitioner was given the right to challenge any future orders in accordance with the law.

Facts: The petitioners GST registration was cancelled due to non-filing of GSTR-3B returns for six months, based on a vague SCN issued on 23.03.2023. The cancellation order dated 06.04.2023 mentioned that no amount was payable by the petitioner, but his appeal was dismissed on 20.06.2024 solely on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner challenged the cancellation and appeal dismissal, arguing that the SCN and cancellation order reflected a lack of clarity and non-application of mind.
Decision: The court found that both the SCN and cancellation order showed non-application of mind as they failed to specify any payable amount or clear violations. The court set aside both the order of cancellation and the order dismissing the appeal on the grounds of limitation. The respondents were granted liberty to issue a fresh SCN, and the petitioner was given the right to challenge any future orders in accordance with the law.

Facts: The petitioners GST registration was cancelled due to non-filing of GSTR-3B returns for six months, based on a vague SCN issued on 23.03.2023. The cancellation order dated 06.04.2023 mentioned that no amount was payable by the petitioner, but his appeal was dismissed on 20.06.2024 solely on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner challenged the cancellation and appeal dismissal, arguing that the SCN and cancellation order reflected a lack of clarity and non-application of mind.
Decision: The court found that both the SCN and cancellation order showed non-application of mind as they failed to specify any payable amount or clear violations. The court set aside both the order of cancellation and the order dismissing the appeal on the grounds of limitation. The respondents were granted liberty to issue a fresh SCN, and the petitioner was given the right to challenge any future orders in accordance with the law.

Facts: The petitioners GST registration was cancelled due to non-filing of GSTR-3B returns for six months, based on a vague SCN issued on 23.03.2023. The cancellation order dated 06.04.2023 mentioned that no amount was payable by the petitioner, but his appeal was dismissed on 20.06.2024 solely on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner challenged the cancellation and appeal dismissal, arguing that the SCN and cancellation order reflected a lack of clarity and non-application of mind.
Decision: The court found that both the SCN and cancellation order showed non-application of mind as they failed to specify any payable amount or clear violations. The court set aside both the order of cancellation and the order dismissing the appeal on the grounds of limitation. The respondents were granted liberty to issue a fresh SCN, and the petitioner was given the right to challenge any future orders in accordance with the law.

Facts: The petitioners GST registration was cancelled due to non-filing of GSTR-3B returns for six months, based on a vague SCN issued on 23.03.2023. The cancellation order dated 06.04.2023 mentioned that no amount was payable by the petitioner, but his appeal was dismissed on 20.06.2024 solely on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner challenged the cancellation and appeal dismissal, arguing that the SCN and cancellation order reflected a lack of clarity and non-application of mind.
Decision: The court found that both the SCN and cancellation order showed non-application of mind as they failed to specify any payable amount or clear violations. The court set aside both the order of cancellation and the order dismissing the appeal on the grounds of limitation. The respondents were granted liberty to issue a fresh SCN, and the petitioner was given the right to challenge any future orders in accordance with the law.