2023 (3) TMI 328 - HC - GST

Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - According to the petitioner, it had, by an inadvertent error, entered 01.02.2018 as the date from which cancellation of registration was sought, instead of 01.02.2019 - HELD THAT - The petitioner has explained that the allegation that M/s Om Enterprises is non-existent is erroneous. There is an apparent error in this regard as well because the correct GSTN number of M/s Om Enterprises is 07AABFO2970Q1ZR and not 07AABFO3970Q1ZR. Mr Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, also drew our attention to a print out from the website of the GST department, which reflects the status of M/s Om Enterprises as active. Prima facie, there are no merit in the contention of the respondent that there are any grounds to doubt the petitioner s statement that its request for cancellation of GST Registration with effect from 01.02.2018 was an apparent error. It is apparent that the petitioner had meant to seek cancellation of the registration with effect from 01.02.2019 and had filed returns till January 2019. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner s application dated 11.02.2019 afresh by considering the date from which the registration was requested to be cancelled as 01.02.2019 instead of 01.02.2018 - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rectification of GST registration cancellation order.
2. Apparent error in application for cancellation of registration.
3. Delay in rectification request.
4. Existence of customer firm Om Enterprises.
5. Allegation of non-existence of Om Enterprises.
6. Verification of Om Enterprises' GSTN number.
7. Merit in petitioner's request for cancellation of registration.
8. Setting aside the cancellation order and reconsideration.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought rectification of the order cancelling its GST registration with effect from 01.02.2018, which was an apparent error as it intended to cancel it from 01.02.2019. The second application for cancellation was accepted, but the respondent did not rectify the error, leading to the petition.

2. The respondent argued that the petitioner's conduct raised doubts, citing the closure of business reason in the first application. The belated rectification request was also highlighted. The respondent questioned the existence of Om Enterprises, a customer who reminded the petitioner of the error.

3. The petitioner clarified the error in Om Enterprises' GSTN number and provided evidence of its active status. The court found no merit in the respondent's doubts and concluded that the petitioner intended to cancel the registration from 01.02.2019, considering the returns filed until January 2019.

4. Despite the lack of grounds for doubt, the court set aside the cancellation order and directed the respondent to reconsider the application for cancellation dated 11.02.2019, specifying the correct date of cancellation as 01.02.2019 instead of 01.02.2018. The concerned officer was instructed to process the application within two weeks.

5. Ultimately, the petition was allowed in the terms mentioned, and the pending application was disposed of, providing relief to the petitioner and rectifying the error in the cancellation order.