9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 352 - HC - GSTCancellation of GST registration of petitioner - principal place of business was not found / available at the time of the field visit - validity of SCN - HELD THAT - The petitioner s contention regarding the impugned SCN being in violation of Rule 25 of the CGST Rules has not been addressed. The petitioner also asserts that it is carrying on the business from its principal place of business and if a proper investigation is carried out, the same would be confirmed. The impugned order dated 17.10.2023 is set aside and matter remanded to the Proper Officer to consider the petitioner s application for revocation of order cancelling its GST registration, afresh - petition disposed off by way of remand,
Issues involved: Petitioner's GST registration cancellation and application for revocation
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the show cause notice dated 24.12.2021 and the subsequent order cancelling the GST registration, along with the rejection of the application for revocation of the cancellation. The main contention was that the petitioner's principal place of business was not found during a field visit. The Proper Officer issued a show cause notice proposing the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration due to the unavailability of the principal place of business during a field visit. The registration was suspended, and later cancelled with retrospective effect, citing the petitioner's failure to respond to the show cause notice. The petitioner applied for revocation of the cancellation, which was rejected by the Proper Officer based on the reason that the petitioner did not furnish a reply to the initial show cause notice. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice was in violation of Rule 25 of the CGST Rules. The court found that the petitioner's argument regarding the violation of Rule 25 was not addressed properly and remanded the matter to the Proper Officer for reconsideration of the application for revocation. The petitioner was allowed to submit additional evidence within two weeks to establish the functioning of the business from the principal place of business. The Proper Officer was directed to review the additional material and pass a speaking order within two weeks if the application for revocation is not accepted. The petition was disposed of accordingly, and any pending applications were also resolved.
|
