2023 (10) TMI 476 - HC - GST

Allegation of taking GST registration by the third party - Petitioner claimed that, respondent have misused the address of his property - Rejection of plaint by invoking the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure - HELD THAT - It is on a contention that respondent No. 3 does not have any subsisting legal right to occupy and / or utilize the petitioner s premises and avail the GST registration on the address of the said premises, the petitioner has approached respondent Nos. 1 2 under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, for cancellation of the registration of respondent No. 3, insofar as it is granted on the address of the petitioner s premises. The prayer in the present proceedings is also similar. Certainly these are disputed questions of fact qua the rights inter se between the petitioner and respondent No. 3. The same cannot be adjudicated in the proceedings of this writ petition. However, if the grievance as made by the petitioner is correct from the perspective of the CGST/MGST Acts, in that event, in our opinion, it is appropriate that the petitioner makes a detailed representation by making specific prayers, to the appropriate / designated officer i.e. respondent No. 1. The learned advocate for the petitioner states that such representation shall be made by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. Let a copy of the representation be also served on respondent No. 3. On such representation of the petitioner, the designated officer / respondent No. 1, shall hear both the parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, on the requests / reliefs as may be prayed by the petitioner in such representation. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The petitioner sought relief through a writ petition to cancel the GST number of the respondent, prevent any action against the premises, and suspend the GST number. The petitioner had a private dispute with the respondent regarding the premises. The respondent filed an application for rejection of the petitioner's plaint, which was allowed. The petitioner appealed this decision, which is pending.

Details of the judgment:
The petitioner's request to cancel the respondent's GST number was based on the claim that the respondent had no legal right to occupy the premises or use the GST registration linked to it. The court noted that these were disputed factual issues between the parties and could not be resolved in the writ petition. The court advised the petitioner to make a detailed representation to the designated officer, respondent No. 1, within two weeks, outlining specific prayers related to the CGST/MGST Acts.

Upon submission of the representation, the designated officer was directed to hear both parties and make appropriate decisions within four weeks. The respondent was given one week to respond to the representation. The court emphasized that the consideration of the representation would focus solely on the registration of the respondent under the CGST/MGST Acts and relevant factors.

All contentions of the parties were kept open for further proceedings. The judgment concluded by disposing of the petition without any costs.