9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 1296 - HC - GSTCancellation of GST Registration of petitioner - petitioner also had an additional place of business, which was registered and was reflected in its GST registration certificate - application rejected on the ground that the reasons for revocation were not covered under the Amnesty Scheme - HELD THAT - The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has secured instructions and submits that the petitioner s additional place of business would be verified and if the petitioner s contention that it has been carrying on its business from the said place, is found to be correct, the petitioner s GST Registration would then be restored. This is also subject to the petitioner applying for rectification of its principal place of business in accordance with law, immediately after its registration is restored. The present petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to verify whether the petitioner has been carrying on its business from its additional place of business 18, Suraj Kund Road, Pul Pehladpur, South-East Delhi, Delhi 110044 within a period of three weeks from date.
Issues: Impugning Show Cause Notice for GST Registration cancellation, rejection of revocation application, rejection of appeal, illusory remedy of appeal before GST Tribunal, incorrect reflection of principal place of business in GST Registration Certificate.
In the present case, the petitioner challenged a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 14.06.2022, which sought to cancel their GST Registration due to the firm being found non-existent during physical verification at the registered address. The petitioner failed to respond to the SCN, leading to the cancellation of registration on 23.08.2022. The petitioner argued that they operated from an additional place of business, which was not inspected, and sought revocation of the cancellation, but their application was rejected as reasons were not covered under the Amnesty Scheme. Subsequent appeals against the rejection were also dismissed, leaving the petitioner with no recourse as the GST Tribunal had not been constituted yet. The petitioner approached the High Court, highlighting the incorrect reflection of their principal place of business in the GST Registration Certificate. The High Court noted that the petitioner had erred in reflecting the incorrect principal place of business in their GST Registration Certificate and had not taken steps to rectify it. However, considering that the records did reflect the additional place of business where the petitioner operated from, the court found it unjust to deny registration solely on this ground. The court directed the respondents to verify the petitioner's business operations at the additional place of business within three weeks. If found satisfactory, the GST Registration would be restored, provided the petitioner applied for rectification of the principal place of business accordingly. The judgment emphasized the importance of accurate reflection of business premises in registration documents and the obligation to rectify any errors promptly. It provided a practical solution by allowing the petitioner an opportunity to prove their business operations at the correct address for the restoration of GST Registration, ensuring compliance with the law.
|
