9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 954X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emedy regarding his appeal against the order rejecting the refund. The impugned order set aside - petition allowed - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA AND HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present: For the Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. A.G., Punjab. G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral) 1. The challenge in the present writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to the orders dated 09.04.2022 (Annexure P-8) whereby GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled which was granted on 25.08.2018 in Form GST REG-06 under Rule 10(1) (Annexure P-4). The Principal Place of Business (PPOB) was shown as B-8, GF-03, Gupta Enterprises, Nirmal Chhaya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce had been given that they would be more careful in future. The work in Punjab had been completed on 31.03.2021 and thereafter no work had been obtained and it was submitted that they were regularly filing the return as NIL. 6. Counsel has also brought to our notice that the necessary proof of renovation as such was appended alongwith other documents before the authorities whereby it showed that plumbing work was going on by a labour contractor apart from other civil works at the said site. The said documents have been stated to have been filed alongwith the reply. Vide order dated 09.04.2022 (Annexure P-8) by passing a cryptic non-speaking order, the cancellation was done on the ground that the reply has been examined and submissions mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re not shown. Further reasoning had been given saying that the renovation charges were not mentioned in the balance sheet/ profit and loss expenses for the financial year 2019-20 and, thus, finding was recorded that the petitioner did not possess proper proof to establish its existence at the PPOB. The contrary finding was recorded that the petitioner had appeared before the Proper Officer and represented its case whereas it is to be noticed that vide the order dated 29.06.2022 (Annexure P- 12), reasoning given for revocation was that the tax payer had also failed to appear for physical hearing. 9. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered view that a very technical approach has been resorted to by the authorities as such. It is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a period of fifteen working days following the date of such verification. 11. Thus, the Appellate Authority has also referred to the Rule 23 to justify the said fact that the petitioner had been duly represented at all points of time. Counsel has also further pointed out that the effect of the revocation has serious ramification in as much as an order of refund of Rs. 10,60,000/- has been rejected by Central Goods and Service Tax Division-1, Derabassi vide order dated 15.02.2023 (Annexure P-16) solely on this ground that their PPOB was cancelled on 09.04.2022 w.e.f. 14.03.2022. The civil consequences of the cancellation as such, thus, apparently out-weigh the manner in which the respondents have as such proceeded in dealing with the case r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
