2025 (2) TMI 1101 - HC - GST

Rejection of application moved for amendment of the Principal Place of Business under Rule 9 (4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules 2017 - HELD THAT - This Court is sanguine that the authorities shall look into the matter in the right earnest. And the appropriate orders assigning reasons in support thereof shall be passed at the earliest. Petition disposed off.

Summary

The petitioner, VK Constructions, sought a Certiorari to quash the order dated 15.01.2025, where the Superintendent rejected their application to amend the Principal Place of Business under Rule 9(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, due to incomplete address details. The petitioner's original place of business was in Thanesar, Kurukshetra, and they wanted to move it to Shahbad, Kurukshetra. The petitioner provided all necessary information and documents, including a geo-tagged location and Aadhaar Card, to establish the location of the new premises. Despite this, they faced hardships as their GST registration was still linked to the old place, affecting their ability to issue invoices and transport goods. The impugned order was not signed by the competent authority and was communicated to the petitioner at the proposed new place of business, raising concerns about its validity.The respondent conceded that the impugned order was indefensible, erroneous, and non-speaking. The reply filed by the respondent did not address the issues raised in the petition but mentioned an investigation by the Anti-Evasion Branch of CGST Division Kurukshetra regarding the petitioner's alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit as the reason for rejection. The respondent agreed to recall/withdraw the impugned order and reconsider the matter within three days.The Court disposed of the petition based on the statements made by both parties, emphasizing that the competent authority should review the petitioner's concerns in accordance with the law. The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, highlighting that the competent authority should address the petitioner's grievances promptly and transparently.In conclusion, the Court directed the competent authority to re-examine the matter and issue appropriate orders promptly, ensuring compliance with legal requirements and providing reasons for their decisions.