Page 113 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

2020 ] PHOENIX RUBBERS v. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, SGST DEPTT., PALAKKAD 15
may be, shall be liable to be registered with effect from the date of such
transfer or succession.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (3), in a
case of transfer pursuant to sanction of a scheme or an arrangement for
amalgamation or, as the case may be, demerger of two or more companies
pursuant to an order of a High Court, Tribunal or otherwise, the transferee
shall be liable to be registered, with effect from the date on which the Regis-
trar of Companies issues a certificate of incorporation giving effect to such
order of the High Court or Tribunal.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, -
(i) the expression “aggregate turnover” shall include all supplies
made by the taxable person, whether on his own account or
made on behalf of all his principals;
(ii) the supply of goods, after completion of job work, by a regis-
tered job worker shall be treated as the supply of goods by the
principal referred to in Section 143, and the value of such
goods shall not be included in the aggregate turnover of the
registered job worker;
(iii) the expression “special category States” shall mean the States
as specified in sub-clause (g) of Clause (4) of Article 279A of
the Constitution.”
11. Sec. 29(2)(c) mandates that power for the cancellation of registration
in a case where there is continuous six months’ default on the part of the assessee
in filing the returns. Since the competent official is obliged to issue a notice in the
nature of Ext.P-1 before he passes final orders, it goes without saying that the
requirement of 6 months’ continuous period should be fulfilled both at the time
of issuance of the abovesaid notice in terms of the proviso to Sec. 29(2) of the
CGST Act read with Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, but also at the stage of passing
the final order cancelling the registration as per Sec. 29(2)(c). In the instant case,
the jurisdictional fact regarding the six months’ continuous default on the part of
the assessee is certainly fulfilled at the time of issuance of Ext.P-1 show cause
notice dated 13-11-2019. Whereas, the said vital requirement of jurisdictional fact
is non-existent as on the date of issuance of the impugned Ext.P-3 cancellation
order, dated 10-12-2019. If that be so, it is only to be held that the impugned or-
der as per Ext.P-3 is illegal and ultra vires and is liable to be interdicted by this
Court. Accordingly, it is ordered that the impugned Ext.P-3 order will stand
quashed.
12. It is made clear that this Court has only decided the limited aspect
regarding the jurisdictional fact required for invoking the power under Sec.
29(2)(c) of the CGST Act and in case the petitioner is liable for any of the manner
for the abovesaid Act, or in case the petitioner after the issuance of Ext.P-3 has
subsequently defaulted six months’ continuous period in filing returns, etc. then
the competent officer concerned is certainly at liberty to proceed in accordance
with law, but certainly after compliance of the basic requirements of fairness and
natural justice.
13. With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition (Civil)
stands finally disposed of.

_______
GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  177