3.2 Section 63 not competing with section 67

23

SUO MOTU CANCELLATION

Para 2.9

‘vendor empanelment’ changes to be made with some Customers, but the key reason for taxpayer’s strife to restore registration is to salvage unclaimed credits on ‘services’, which are not secured by section 18(1). It is well-known that response from taxpayers against suspension of registration will generally be promptly tendered, when unclaimed credit on inward supplies of services remain to be salvaged. Response from taxpayers seeking withdrawal of suspension should address all outstanding compliances of tax, interest and late fee. Where there are no further delinquencies and reason(s) for suspension properly removed, withdrawal request will not normally be denied. Grounds such as loss of livelihood due to suspension of registration, cancellation of Contracts from Customers due to invoices not appearing in GSTR2A/2B of those Customers, etc,. are consequences that taxpayers are responsible for and not good and sufficient reasons for withdrawal of suspension. Time allowed to respond in REG18 is extended to thirty (30) in case of suspension and this time limit also indicates the time by when Proper Officer may proceed to cancel registration in REG19.

2.9 SUO MOTU CANCELLATION

Section 29 permits registered taxpayers to cancel registration granted if they no longer attract the provisions of section 22 or 24, even if registration was voluntary under 25(3). Rule 21A contains the ‘due process’ in this regard. In certain specified instances, suo motu cancellation is directly permitted. Unlike suspension, cancellation is final; and for this reason, post-suspension notice in REG31 borrows from pre-cancellation notice in REG17 and response is to be furnished in REG18 within seven (7) days. Given that Legislature has specified five (5) explicit delinquencies that taxpayers are well-informed through section 29(2) itself, there should be no violation of principles of natural justice here too by cancelling registration without serving notice. Maxim vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt states that the law assists those who are vigilant about their rights and not those who are asleep over them. And when any of these five (5) delinquencies are permitted to occur and remain unresolved, taxpayer must not express surprise or complain about ‘inadequate notice’ when Proper Officer proceeds with cancellation as authorized by Legislature. Proper Officer is not answerable if registrations are cancelled in all cases where these specified delinquencies exist. And existence of discretion does not militate against validity of actions of Proper Officer even if adverse consequences befall taxpayers whose registrations are cancelled but no such action is taken against other taxpayers whose delinquencies are comparable. There is no right against discrimination between delinquents inter se. Taxpayer who is issued notice in REG17 must not only reply in REG18 but more importantly redress and regularize outstanding delinquencies which