A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court quashed the cancellation of GST Registration made on assumption that petitioner being non-existent at principal place of business.
The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the show cause notice as well as the order passed by the concerned authority, pursuant to the said show cause notice. The petitioner is an individual and carries on his business as a sole proprietor under the name M/s Roxy Enterprises. The petitioner claims that it carries on the business for exporting automobile parts and other assorted hardware products from his place of business.
The respondent issued a show notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why his GST registration should not be cancelled. The reason for proposing the aforesaid adverse action was stated to be: “Others”.
The petitioner submitted that the notice was issued to him due to a delayed response to summons issued by the Deputy Commissioner, and not providing documents in time and that the petitioner had all the relevant documents in his possession and if there was any oversight on the part of the petitioner, the petitioner would take full responsibility for the same. The petitioner claimed that he went to the concerned office but was not afforded a hearing.
The petitioner further contended that the said reason as stated in the impugned order is ex facie erroneous as the petitioner continues to carry on his business from the premises, which is also registered as his principal place of business. He further states that the Rule 25 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 was not complied with as the petitioner had no notice of any inspection, if at all, carried out at the premises. The Coram comprising of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan observed that “It is now clear that the respondents proposed to cancel the petitioner’s registration on the assumption that he was not-existent at his principal place of business, this Court considers it apposite to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the concerned officer to consider afresh after affording the petitioner a full opportunity to be heard.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
