9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the orders dated 09.12.2020 and 18.02.2021 passed by respondent no.2. 2. The first order dated 09.12.2020 concerns cancellation of GST registration while second order i.e., the order dated 18.02.2021, relates to the dismissal of the application for revocation of cancellation. 3. The facts which are required to be noticed, with regard to the challenge laid by the petitioner to the aforementioned orders, are briefly the following: 3.1. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 11.11.2020. Via this notice, the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to the factum of it not being found functioning or existing at the given address. 3.2. To respond to the aforesaid show cause notice, the petitioner was given seven working days. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advertently reported in GST returns filed during FY 2019-20 (Since GST law allows reporting/rectification of error or omission till September month of the next financial year); c. Furnishing of Form GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C for FY 2017-18/2018-19 on account of extended due dates; d. Filing of refund claims. 4. The company is in the process of preparing and filing Form GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C for FY 2018-19 which is due for filing by 31 December 2020 and would apply for cancellation of registration suo-moto post filing of GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C for FY 2018-19 and furnishing of refund claim against excess payment of tax made during FY 2018-19. In light of above, we assure your kind authority that we will suo-motu apply for cancellation of registrati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eedings. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Sameer Vashisht, who appears on behalf of respondent no.2, says that there is a discrepancy and/ or contradiction as to when the petitioner closed down his business at the given address. For this purpose, he has drawn our attention to page 53 of the case file and cross-referenced the same with page 122 of the case file. 7.1. Mr. Vashisht says that the petitioner was given an opportunity to respond to the show cause notice and since there was no response, the impugned order dated 09.12.2020 was passed. It is stated that in any event, the petitioner was given a personal hearing qua the revocation application, and it was only thereafter that the order was passed. 7.2. Furthermore, Mr. Vashisht says since t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for revocation was rejected which is, as noticed above, the order dated 18.12.2021, shows that an inspection was carried out on the premises of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that although, Rule 251 requires inspection to be done in the presence of the person whose property is being inspected, it was not done as the petitioner had no notice of the inspection. 9. Besides the aforesaid, we may also note that the perusal of the order dated 09.12.2020 clearly discloses that there is no tax outstanding qua the petitioner. 9.1. It is quite obvious that the petitioner wishes to continue maintaining its registration, if only for the purposes disclosed in its reply dated 23.11.2020. 10. We may also add, having gone through the document date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
