9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 532X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA For the Petitioner Through: Ms Anjali Jha Manish, Mr Priyadarshi Manish and Ms Divya Rastogi, Advocates. For the Respondents Through: Mr Atul Triapthi, SCC for CBIC and Mr V.K. Attri, Advocate. VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... although the petitioner was granted seven working days to file a reply to the said notice, the petitioner was called upon to appear before the proper officer on 20.02.2024, prior to the expiry of the said period of seven days. It is contended that in this case, the hearing was evidently only meant to be an empty formality and not an effective opportunity for the petitioner to contest the proposed action. Third, it is stated that the impugned SCN does not set out either the name of the concerned officer before whom the petitioner was to appear, nor the venue at which the hearing was to take place. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The impugned SCN indicates it was issued on the basis of a letter dated 06.02.2024 receiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner s GST Registration not only reflected the principal place of business but also an additional place (F-385, All Floor, Main Wazirpur Road, Chand Bagh, East Delhi, Delhi-110094). However, no inspection was carried out at the said site. 11. The petitioner further claims that after the inspection on 12.01.2024, the petitioner had applied for a change of address on 06.02.2024. The same was allowed on 07.02.2024 and an amended certificate of registration was issued. 12. It is clear from the above that the petitioner had changed its principal place of business, which was found to be under construction. The petitioner claims that it had applied for a change of its principal place of b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. 16. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside. 17. 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. 18. In the given circumstances, we consider it 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
