2024 (1) TMI 227 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Cancellation of petitioner's GST registration - non-submission of reply to SCN - HELD THAT - The question if the petitioner was carrying on his business at the registered address or not at the relevant point of time, is a question of fact. The finding recorded in the order of cancellation of GST registration and in the order rejecting the application for revocation, that the petitioner was not running business at the registered address is a finding of fact, which prima facie is based on some material in the form of the field inspection report. If the petitioner s case is contrary, that the business was being run at the registered address and if the petitioner has evidence to prove that, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the appropriate forum to reappraise the evidence to determine finding of fact, is not in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Undisputedly, the petitioner has got the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. If the petitioner so chooses or advised, the remedy of appeal may be availed as per the law. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the cancellation of GST registration and the rejection of the application for revocation of cancellation.

Cancellation of GST Registration:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking relief against the cancellation of GST registration by the 4th respondent. The petitioner claimed to have submitted a reply on the same day as the order of cancellation but outside the time granted in the show-cause notice. The petitioner argued that business was being conducted at the registered address, contrary to the field visit report. The court noted that the finding that the petitioner was not running business at the registered address was based on the field inspection report, making it a question of fact. The court held that the appropriate forum to challenge this finding was not a writ petition under Article 226 but through the statutory remedy of appeal under the GST Act. Consequently, the writ petition challenging the cancellation of GST registration was dismissed.

Rejection of Application for Revocation:
The petitioner also challenged the rejection of the application for revocation of the cancellation of GST registration by the 5th respondent. The petitioner submitted explanations and promises in the application, acknowledging the registration on the residential address and the business operations. However, the application was rejected based on the field visit report indicating no business activity at the registered address. The court observed that the rejection was a finding of fact and stated that if the petitioner had evidence to prove business operations at the registered address, the appropriate forum for review was through the statutory remedy of appeal. The court declined to entertain the writ petition challenging the rejection of the application for revocation.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging both the cancellation of GST registration and the rejection of the application for revocation. The court emphasized that the petitioner had the statutory alternative remedy of appeal available under the GST Act. No costs were awarded, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were also closed as a result of the judgment.