9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the registration of the petitioner and its parent company emanate from same premises, the 2nd respondent, without verifying the records to know whether the petitioner involved in issuing and obtaining the fake invoices and doing fake business to avoid tax, came to the conclusion that the place of business shown by the petitioner is not suited for the present business activities and hence, recommended for cancelation - it cannot be comprehended, even if the place of business of the petitioner for argument sake is not conducive for its business, how the said fact can be treated as sufficient to conclude that the petitioner obtained registration by committing fraud or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. In spite of the petitioner s submission that the complete details of purchases and sales can be verified at any point of time, the 2nd respondent without resorting to such logical and legal exercise, simply carried away by the recommendations of the Inspecting Authority i.e., Deputy Assistant Commissioner who on a conjuncture suspected that the taxpayer may be engaged in bill trading without proper receipt and supply of goods, for which there is no proper basis. Therefore, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts of vacant land with built up area situated in S.No. 15/3 of Vasanadu Gollapalle Village, Kuppam Mandal belonging to its parent company under Lease Agreement dated 26.11.2022. In a portion of the said premises, the parent company also operates. The petitioner obtained GST registration No. 37AAVCS0110M1Z2 on 06.01.2023. (c) The further case of petitioner is that the Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-II, Palamaner circle visited the business place of the petitioner on 16.03.2023 and submitted his remarks, basing on which the 2nd respondent issued show cause notice dated 20.03.2023 with a vague allegation to the effect In case registration has been obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts , the petitioner is directed to furnish reply within seven days . The petitioner s registration was suspended w.e.f. 20.03.2023. (d) The petitioner submitted reply on 24.03.2023 submitting that the petitioner never indulged in any fraud or bill trading or movement of goods without invoice and requested to revoke the suspension of GST registration. Subsequently the 2nd respondent passed impugned order dated 20.04.2023 cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 1st respondent. 6. Be that as it may, Section 29(2) of the A.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 specifies the grounds on which the GST registration of a taxpayer can be cancelled. It reads thus: 29(2). The proper officer may cancel the registration of a person from such date, including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit, where, (a) a registered person has contravened such provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder as may be prescribed; or (b) a person paying tax under section 10 has not furnished returns for three consecutive tax periods; or (c) any registered person, other than a person specified in clause (b), has not furnished returns for a continuous period of six months; or (d) any person who has taken voluntary registration under sub-section (3) of section 25 has not commenced business within six months from the date of registration; or (e) registration has been obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts: Provided that the proper officer shall not cancel the registration without giving the person an opportunity of being heard. [Provided further that during pendency of the proceedings relating to cancellation of registration, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re from its parent company and sales were spread over to different States. Further, the majority of the scrap iron which is procured by the petitioner from different countries is sold to its parent company. Most importantly, the petitioner avouched that the complete details of the purchases and sales can be verified at any point of time if the need arises. The petitioner further avouched that never ever, the petitioner committed any wilful fraud, bill trading or movement of goods without proper invoices. On such submission, the petitioner sought for revocation of the suspension of its GST registration. 9. Then the impugned registration cancellation order dated 20.04.2023 reveals that the 2nd respondent having reproduced the above reply dated 24.03.2023, made the following observation: Examined the reply filed by the Taxable person with reference to the documents available on record in GST Portal. The Taxable person has given the address of the present business place i.e., M/s Sakthi Steel Industries India Pvt. Ltd. bearing GTSTIN No. 37AAVCS0110M1Z2, Sy.No.15/3, Ground, Sakthi Ferro Alloys India Private Limited, Factory, Gollapalli village, Vasanadugolla Palle, Nadimur Gramapanchay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment or suppression of facts. It should not be forgotten that whether the petitioner is involved in bill trading without proper receipt and supply of goods can be determined only after thorough examination of relevant records such as account books, e waybills, transportation particulars, toll plaza particulars etc. However, in spite of the petitioner s submission that the complete details of purchases and sales can be verified at any point of time, the 2nd respondent without resorting to such logical and legal exercise, simply carried away by the recommendations of the Inspecting Authority i.e., Deputy Assistant Commissioner who on a conjuncture suspected that the taxpayer may be engaged in bill trading without proper receipt and supply of goods, for which there is no proper basis. Therefore, the impugned registration cancellation order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 11. Then we have perused the appellate order passed by the 1st respondent. Needless to emphasize that the said authority also committed the same mistake in confirming the order of the 2nd respondent without considering a logical question as to how the mere commonality of the location of the petitioner and parent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
