Oyster Steel and Iron Private Limited

Whether the cancellation of the petitioner’s registration with retrospective effect from 31.12.2019 prevents the Department from proceeding with the audit notice dated 15.09.2022 under Section 65, either altogether or for the period after 31.12.2019 (Para 16).

Audit under Section 2(13) examines records and returns maintained or furnished by a registered person, and Section 65(1) empowers audit of any registered person “for such period” as prescribed (Paras 17-18). An application for cancellation does not end registration; under Rule 21A it is deemed suspended, and the person remains a registered person (Paras 19-20). Since definitions apply unless the context otherwise requires, “registered person” in Section 65 must be read in light of an audit’s backward-looking function, and is not confined to a person whose registration is effective when the audit takes place (Paras 21-22).

A period with no registration differs from one covered by a registration later cancelled retrospectively: cancellation fixes the legal effectiveness of the registration from the specified date but does not erase the fact that it was granted or acts done under it. Section 29(3) preserves liabilities for earlier periods but does not itself answer whether audit may extend beyond the effective date; the authority comes from Sections 2(13) and 65 read with Rule 101 (Paras 24-26). The court adopted the contextual approach of L.J. Victoria Properties, which did not itself address retrospective cancellation within the audited period, and decided that question independently (Paras 27-30).

The conclusion does not treat issuance of ADT-01 as fixing jurisdiction regardless of later events, nor assume that the petitioner carried on business after 31.12.2019; treating returns as void does not erase the underlying records, and audit itself determines no liability (Paras 31-33). Tvl. Raja Stores, which confined Section 65 to existing concerns, had been disagreed with in L.J. Victoria Properties, and the Audit Manual is departmental guidance that cannot define the statutory power (Paras 34-36). The Department’s reference to audit “till date of cancellation” in its counter was not an unequivocal concession (Para 37).