On a plain reading of section 29 of the Act, it is evident that there is a apparent difference between section 29(1) and section 29(2) of the Act.
Both the sections operate in different fields. The power to cancel retrospectively is provided under section 29(2) of the Act. The intention of the Legislature is that in certain circumstances, the authorities have the power to retrospectively cancel the registration of any person which has been obtained by fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts.
Entries which have been obtained on the basis of fraudulent registration and to allow accumulation of tax credit in favour of third parties would defeat the object and purpose of the Act – the legislature had contemplated retrospective cancellation of registrations which have been obtained to fraudulently avail ITC not only by the taxpayer whose registration is sought to be cancelled but also other entities which wrongly seek to avail ITC.
There has been no violation of the principle of natural justice in the proceedings conducted by the authorities.
On the contrary, the petitioner had been granted adequate opportunity by the respondent authorities. The impugned orders are well reasoned –
No cogent evidence has been relied on by the petitioner to warrant any interference with the impugned orders. There has also been no contravention of any law nor any procedural impropriety which warrants any interference.
Petition dismissed.
This case law is compiled for the easy reference of the reader. It is not a legal or binding opinion. While utmost care is taken while drafting the post, any error, if noticed by the learned reader may notify the same to TEAM NCJA on + 919920245128
Share this content: