2024 (7) TMI 532 - HC - GST

Cancellation of petitioner s GST Registration - cancellation on the ground that petitioner had not responded to the impugned SCN - HELD THAT - It is apparent from the record that the only reason for which the petitioner s GST Registration is sought to be cancelled is that the petitioner has been found non-existent at its principal place of business. It is also apparent that the petitioner has sought to change its principal place of business more than once. It is considered apposite to direct that the petitioner be permitted to file a response to the allegation regarding the non-existence at its principal place of business. It will be open for the petitioner to set out the complete details as to when it has ceased to carry on its business from its principal place of business and also to furnish sufficient evidence as to the place from where it continued to carry on its business. The petition is disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Impugning order of GST Registration cancellation based on Show Cause Notice (SCN) validity and procedural irregularities.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the order cancelling their GST Registration (GSTIN) and the accompanying Show Cause Notice (SCN). The impugned SCN was issued based on a letter from the Anti Evasion Branch, alleging the non-existence of the petitioner's principal place of business.

2. The petitioner raised objections to the validity of the SCN, citing that it was issued solely based on the Anti Evasion Branch's letter without independent assessment by the proper officer. Additionally, procedural irregularities were highlighted, such as insufficient time given for response and lack of clarity on the hearing details.

3. The High Court examined the letter from the Anti Evasion Branch, which revealed that during an inspection, the petitioner's principal place of business was found non-existent, with the site under construction for over two years. The petitioner had attempted to change the address, which was initially rejected but later approved.

4. The impugned order stated that the GST Registration was cancelled due to the petitioner's failure to respond to the SCN, with retrospective effect. The petitioner contested this, citing previous business activities at the principal place of business in 2021 and explaining the construction status of the site owned by their promoter.

5. The Court acknowledged the need for the petitioner to address the allegations of non-existence at the principal place of business and allowed them to respond within a specified timeframe. A personal hearing was scheduled for the petitioner to present evidence and clarify the situation before a decision by the Proper Officer.

6. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order, directing the petitioner to provide a detailed response and evidence regarding their business operations and the principal place of business. The Court emphasized the importance of a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present their case before any further decision is made.