9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a is a proprietor of the firm handling the business with the assistance of her husband Mr. Ashutosh Tiwari. As per records of the respondents, the registered office of the firm is situated at the 1st Floor, Orbit Mall, A.B. Road, Indore - 452001 (M.P.). According to the petitioner, due to health issues of her husband, the business was slowed down and she could not operate it properly, she was unable to bear the rent of the premises, hence she had to shift the business operation to her residential address at 516, BRG Sangrila Talawali Chanda, Indore - 452001 (M.P.) from November 2022. The petitioner also possesses the Gumasta License issued by the District Labour Officer on 16.07.2023. 03. According to the respondents, a proper officer of the SGCT department conducted the physical operation on 15.05.2023 at a registered place of business i.e. 1st Floor, Orbit Mall, A.B. Road, Indore - 452001 (M.P.) of the petitioner but the same was found locked, therefore, a show cause notice dated 17.05.2023 was issued for cancellation of registration of license due to "Discrepancies noticed while the conduct of Physical Verification". The petitioner was given three days time to file a response t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the petitioner that it is not a case of the respondents that the petitioner availed the input tax credit without undertaking any business, whereas the petitioner had paid the input tax credit in cash. Due to unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner had to shift the place of business from 1st Floor, Orbit Mall, A.B. Road, Indore - 452001 (M.P.) to her residence at 516, BRG Sangrila Talawali Chanda, Indore - 452001 (M.P.) hence, the said premises was found locked. In support of its contention, Shri Dubey, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Roxy Enterprises v/s Union of India and others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Del 8337 and the judgment passed by Allahabad High Court in case of M/s Shyam Sundar Sita Ram Traders v/s State of U.P. and two others reported in Neutral Citation 2023 ASC 60053. 09. Per contra, Shri Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the petition has been rendered infructuous because the show cause notice dated 26.07.2024 has been adjudicated by passing an Original In Order (OIO) on 31.12.2024. However, the order has been passed in favour of the petitioner and agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Joshi ought to have recorded the statement of the nearby shop owner and obtained their signature in the visit notes as a witness. It appears that no one was accompanied with him from the GST department on 15.05.2023 at the time of the search. Had any person visited with him, he would have countersigned this visit note, therefore, such a visit note cannot be relied on for taking such a drastic action of cancellation of license. 12. In the case of Roxy Enterprises (supra), the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi has considered Rule 25 of GST Rules 2017 which deals with the physical verification of business premises in certain cases. According to Rule 25, the physical verification of the business premises should be done in the presence of the person, and it should be uploaded in the form GST REG-30 on the common portal within 15 working days following the date of such verification. Apart from the above, all these grounds on which the registration of the petitioner has been cancelled have already been criticized by the Joint Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Indore in its order dated 31.12.2024 whereby show cause notice for imposing a penalty of Rs. 6,17,33,624/- has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly informed that there was mutual consent between her and Shri Ankit Alaya but she did not execute any agreement during entire period. On further being enquired, Smt. Mishra could not produce any bank entry of the rent paid by her to Shri Ankit Alaya. Hence, registration was not revoked. Thus, it revealed that M/s. Empire Steel Holdings is found non-existent and non operational. Further, Noticee has filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeal) and Joint Commissioner(Appeals), who disallowed the Noticee appeal of the Noticee vide OIA NO IND-CGST-JC-APP-40- 2024-25 dated 25.04.2024(RUD-III to SCN)as the Noticee has failed to prove the genuineness of their firm." 13. Thereafter, the Joint Commissioner has considered the GSTR 2A submitted by the petitioner and legal provisions like Sections 16, 20, 122, and 155 of the Act of 2017. The learned Joint Commissioner discussed the issue and recorded its findings in Para 5 and held that no penalty is liable to be imposed. Para 5.6 is reproduced below: "5.6. I also find from the case records that physical copy of Show Cause Notice issued to the Noticee was returned undelivered by the Postal Department from the Principal Place of Busine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
