The High Court held that the respondents' conclusion of the petitioner's principal place of business...

The High Court held that the respondents' conclusion of the petitioner's principal place of business being non-existent at the time of physical verification was ex facie erroneous. The conclusion was based solely on purported enquiries from nearby shop owners, without mentioning their names or details in the Field Report. Cancelling a taxpayer's registration solely on the basis of general queries from random persons, without any record, is difficult to countenance. The petitioner's premises were found to exist, with a signboard bearing the GSTIN, and a photograph in the Field Report established possession at the material time. The petitioner contended that the shop was closed and reopened a few days before inspection due to suspension of GS..... .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X