The case involved a petitioner who challenged a SCN issued by the GST authorities proposing the cancellation of their registration. The petitioner argued that the SCN was defective due to several procedural irregularities.

Key Procedural Lapses:

• Missing Officer Details: The SCN lacked the name and designation of the issuing officer.
• Absent Supporting Documents: The notice mentioned attached documents but failed to include them, leaving the petitioner with no way to access them.
• Digital Signature vs. Officer Signature: The SCN lacked a physical signature from a designated official, relying solely on a digital signature from the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN).
• Unclear Grounds: The SCN didn't specify which reason (fraud, misstatement, or suppression of facts) justified the proposed cancellation.
• Unverified Service of Notice: The authorities claimed to have sent a separate notice (Form GST REG 31) via physical mail, which isn't a valid service method under the law.

Court's Ruling:

The court acknowledged the procedural lapses and deemed the SCN defective. They ruled to:

• Set aside the impugned SCN and Form GST REG 31.
• Allow the authorities to issue a proper SCN following legal procedures if they have grounds for cancellation.

Case Law-Rajkumar Singhal Versus The Goods and Services Tax Network and Ors.-Respondent

Citation-2024 TAXONATION 533 (DELHI)

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL CASE LAW 

OR 

SUBSCRIBE GST E-LIBRARY (INDIA'S HIGHEST GST CASE LAW DATA)

FOR MORE UPDATE ON GST/ IT JOIN OUR FREE WHATSAPP GROUP BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK https://chat.whatsapp.com/ILCu7dfsrD07gj5RddywZd