The Delhi High Court in a significant case directed to furnish documents required to the commissioner of GST for cancelling GST registration. The court observed that the petitioner has failed to submit the documents required by the GST department.
The petitioner Vaani Enterprises filed the writ petition for directing the respondents to allow the application of the petitioner seeking cancellation of GST registration. The petitioner closed his business and applied for cancellation of GST registration on 02.11.2022, however, the said application was rejected.
Thereafter, petitioner once again applied in February, 2023 and three times thereafter but each time, the application was rejected, however, the last application dated 12.01.2024 is still pending
According to the respondent counsel each time the petitioner applied for cancellation, the petitioner was required to furnish further details. However, since the details were not furnished, applications were rejected.
Further the respondent counsel submitted that petitioner was not found functioning at the registered address of the petitioner as given by the petitioner in GST registration. Since the petitioner has already shut his business and intimated the Department of the closure of his business, the petitioner could not have been found functioning at the given address.
The respondent conclusively contended that petitioner has failed to furnish all requisite information, as also failed to furnish the changed address with proof thereof, the case of the petitioner is that petitioner had uploaded a copy of the document bearing changed address.
Counsel for petitioner submitted that in case any further information is required for by the Department in terms of Section 29 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 or any further documents in support of change of address, petitioner shall furnish the same as and when required by the petitioner
Therefore the division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja, disposed teh petition by directing the petitioner to furnish documents as may be required by the Department in terms of Section 29 of the Act and or change of address of petitioner.
Mr. Pranay Jain and Mr. Karan Singh, advocates Who appeared for the petitioner.
Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava, Standing Counsel with Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate who appeared for the revenue.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
