2025 (2) TMI 842 - HC - GST

Cancellation of registration of the petitioner - registration had been obtained by fraud/willful misstatement or suppression of material facts as enumerated in Section 29(2)(e) of the Act - non-consideration of the documents relied upon by the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is true that the petitioner had relied upon the electricity bills issued in the name of Tarak Nath Pandey as also the leave and licence agreement. It is noted that the leave and licence agreement dated 12th October 2018 was valid for a period of 11 months. No attempt has been made by the petitioner to establish the factum payment of licence fee of Rs. One thousand per month to the said Tarak Nath Pandey. No attempt has also been made to demonstrate that the petitioner had been making payment of electricity charges to the said Tarak Nath Pandey for occupying the room in question in terms of the leave and licence agreement. The certificate of enlistment issued in favour of the petitioner for the assessment year 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 though cannot be doubted which was available upto 31th March 2020 however at the same time one cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner had not challenged the observations as regards the spot visit by the Bureau of Investigation. No attempt was made by the petitioner to respond to the show cause or to appear before the appellate authority. Having regard thereto the inference drawn by the Proper Officer in the facts of the case appears to be plausible one. The above order does not appear to be one which is based on no evidence or can be said to be perverse. As such no interference is called for. Conclusion - The petitioner s failure to provide sufficient evidence to refute the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation led to the dismissal of the writ petition. Petition dismissed.

Summary

The issues presented and considered in the Calcutta High Court judgment are as follows:1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's registration under the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 was justified based on allegations of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of material facts.2. Whether the appellate authority's refusal to interfere with the cancellation order was appropriate.3. Whether the documents and evidence relied upon by the petitioner were adequately considered in the decision-making process.The Court considered the petitioner's challenge to the cancellation of their registration under the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, as well as the appellate authority's decision not to overturn the cancellation order. The petitioner claimed to be conducting business from a specific location based on a leave and licence agreement. However, the Bureau of Investigation found discrepancies during a field enquiry, leading to the cancellation of the registration.The Court analyzed the relevant legal framework, including Section 29(2)(e) of the said Act, which outlines grounds for cancellation of registration. The Court considered the evidence presented, such as the leave and licence agreement and electricity bills, in relation to the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation. The Court noted that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim and did not challenge the Bureau of Investigation's findings.The Court concluded that the cancellation of the petitioner's registration was justified based on the evidence and the Proper Officer's decision. The Court found that the appellate authority's refusal to interfere with the cancellation order was appropriate given the lack of compelling evidence presented by the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.The significant holdings of the judgment include:- The Proper Officer's decision to cancel the registration was based on valid grounds and supported by the evidence.- The appellate authority's decision not to overturn the cancellation order was upheld.- The petitioner's failure to provide sufficient evidence to refute the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation led to the dismissal of the writ petition.Overall, the Court found in favor of upholding the cancellation of the petitioner's registration under the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 based on the evidence and legal framework presented in the case.