9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 832X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it has been stipulated that the employee(s) must be present at the business premises all the time. Therefore, on this ground alone the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. Once the State Tax Officer had himself admitted before the Appellate Authority, State Taxes (Appeals-II), Kashmir Division that the unit of the petitioner-company was existing and he confirmed existence of the same, as reflected in order dated 29.08.2022, then what prompted the respondents herein, particularly State Tax Officer, to again issue show cause notice dated 20.09.2022 within 19 days of the restoration of petitioner s registration or within 22 days of the passing of order dated 29.08.2022, proposing to cancel the registration of petitioner-company being non-functional at the principal place of business, is not forthcoming. It is strange enough that just 22 days earlier in the order dated 29.08.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority, State Taxes (Appeals-II), Kashmir Division, the State Tax Officer had himself admitted that the unit of petitioner-company was existing at the principal place of business and he confirmed the existence of the same as per his inspections. Further, the file r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The petitioner was also granted GST registration, bearing No.01AABCT5333R1Z7. It is averred that on 02.03.2022 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by respondent No.3 seeking to cancel its registration on the ground that the petitioner is non-functioning or non-existing at the principal place of business, i.e., Ishber, Nishat Main Road, Srinagar and the registration was proposed to be suspended with effect from 02.03.2022. Further, it is averred that though the petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice, yet, respondent No.3 passed the order on 10.06.2022 cancelling the registration of petitioner. The petitioner filed an application before respondent No.3 seeking revocation of cancellation of GST registration, however, respondent No.3 vide order dated 22.08.2022 rejected the application of petitioner on the ground that the petitioner failed to file reply to the notice within the time specified therein. Thereafter, the petitioner made an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Sates Taxes Department, Kashmir and the appellate authority vide order dated 29.08.2022 directed the department to retrospectively restore the GST registration of petitioner. Accordingly, respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontending therein that in the month of September, 2022, during routine inspection, the business premises of petitioner-Company was found locked. The landlord in the month of October, 2022 also gave an undertaking that the business premise is no more used by the petitioner-Company since many months. Even on 02.11.2022 the petitioner-Company was found non-functional at the principal place of business, accordingly, the registration of petitioner-company was cancelled vide order dated 5.11.2022. Not only this, even on 30.11.2022 the petitioner-Company was found non-functional at the principal place of business. It is averred that the landlord again on 14.07.2023 gave a declaration that he has not rented out any space to the petitioner-company. 8. It is averred that thereafter the petitioner-company changed the address of principal place of business to 7A, Boulevard Shopping Complex, Boulevard Road, Srinagar and submitted unregistered rent deed signed by one Mr. Imran Gosani, who declared himself to be the absolute owner of the land. However, when the said document was sent to the Chief Executive Officer, J K Waqf Board by respondent No.3, it was intimated that Mr. Imran Gosani under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing days following the date of such verification. 13. A perusal of the above Rule clearly indicates that the proper officer was required to get the physical verification of the business premises done in the presence of concerned person. In the present case, it seems the respondents have clearly violated the provisions of Rule 25 of CGST Rules because the Appellate Authority, State Taxes (Appeals-II), Kashmir-Srinagar in its order, bearing No.234-37/GST/DCST/APP-II dated 18.08.2023, impugned herein, has clearly recorded that the State Taxes Officer (STO) had fairly conceded before him that no notice was issued to the petitioner-company herein as mandated by Rule 25, requiring presence of its employee(s) at the time of verification. Further, nowhere in the CGST provisions it has been stipulated that the employee(s) must be present at the business premises all the time. Therefore, on this ground alone the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. 14. As regards the contention of respondents that in the month of October, 2022 the landlord fhad given an undertaking that the business premises is no more being used by the petitioner-company since many months, as averred in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egistration of petitioner-company being non-functional at the principal place of business, is not forthcoming. It is strange enough that just 22 days earlier in the order dated 29.08.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority, State Taxes (Appeals-II), Kashmir Division, the State Tax Officer had himself admitted that the unit of petitioner-company was existing at the principal place of business and he confirmed the existence of the same as per his inspections. Even, the appellate authority had admitted in its order dated 29.08.2022 that the petitioner-company has filed rent copies of the business premises confirming his existence/functionality at the principal place of business. Further, the show cause notice does not reflect which official had visited the principal place of business of petitioner-company and on which date he visited the said place, what to talk of following the provisions of Rule 25 of CGST Rules, 2017 because a perusal of the file reveals that the respondents appear to be habitual enough in not adhering to the said rules. Not only this, even the show cause notice does not show who has issued the same, even the show cause notice is without any signatures and the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
