9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 228 - HC - GSTMaintainability 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.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the cancellation of GST registration and the rejection of the application for revocation of cancellation by the tax authorities. Cancellation of GST Registration: The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the cancellation of their GST registration by respondent No. 4. The order of cancellation was passed on 07.07.2023, citing the petitioner's failure to submit a reply to the show-cause notice issued on 26.06.2023. The petitioner contended that they did submit a reply on the same day as the cancellation order, although not within the stipulated time frame. The court noted that the cancellation was based on a field visit report indicating no business activity at the registered address. Rejection of Application for Revocation: Subsequently, the petitioner applied for revocation of the cancellation, but the application was rejected by respondent No. 5 on 04.10.2023. The rejection was based on the field visit report indicating the absence of business activity at the registered address. The petitioner argued that they were indeed conducting business at the registered address and provided explanations and evidence to support their claim. However, the court held that the determination of whether the business was operational at the registered address is a question of fact, and the appropriate forum to challenge such findings is through the statutory remedy of appeal under the GST Act. Statutory Remedy of Appeal: The court emphasized that the petitioner had the statutory alternative remedy of appeal available under the GST Act to challenge the cancellation and rejection of the revocation application. The court concluded that the matter of factual determination regarding the business activity at the registered address should be addressed through the appeal process rather than a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Decision: Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that they were not inclined to entertain it, and highlighted that the petitioner should avail themselves of the statutory remedy of appeal if they choose to challenge the cancellation and rejection decisions. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were also closed as a result of the judgment.
|
