The Delhi High Court has directed the Commissioner of CGST, Delhi North, to verify whether the petitioner has been carrying on its business from its additional place of business within three weeks and, if verified, to restore the petitioner’s GST registration.
M/s Shivoy Enterprises filed a petition challenging a Show Cause Notice dated 14.06.2022, which proposed the cancellation of their GST registration on the grounds that the business was found non-existent at its registered address during a physical verification. Consequently, the petitioner’s registration was suspended with effect from the same date.
The petitioner did not respond to the impugned SCN, leading to the respondent cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration by an order dated 23.08.2022, citing non-existence of the firm at the registered address. Additionally, it was stated that the owner of the given premises had made a statement that the petitioner had not occupied the premises.
The primary issue revolved around the validity of the cancellation of GST registration based on the findings of the physical verification and whether the petitioner was genuinely conducting business from an additional registered place.
Vineet Bhatia and Bipin Punia, the counsels for the petitioner, argued that their client also had an additional place of business, which was registered and reflected in its GST registration certificate.
The petitioner claimed it continued to operate from the additional premises, which had not been inspected. The petitioner contended that the non-compliance of any statutory provisions due to genuine or unavoidable reasons would warrant revocation of the cancellation of the GST registration.
The respondents, represented by Shubham Tyagi, maintained that the cancellation was legitimate since the principal place of business was found non-existent. They underscored that the petitioner’s failure to rectify their principal place of business address contributed to the non-compliance.
The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Sachin Datta noted that a plain reading of the petitioner’s GST registration certificate indicated the petitioner’s principal place of business as “103, Block-A, Kamla Nagar, South-East Delhi, Delhi-110007” and an additional place of business as “18, Suraj Kund Road, Pul Pehladpur, South-East Delhi, Delhi – 110044”.
The petitioner conceded that it was not functioning from the principal place of business and had applied for a change of its principal place of business to the additional place of business prior to the roll-out of the GST regime. However, the application was not accepted, and the records reflected the principal place of business erroneously.
The court found it difficult to accept that the petitioner should be denied its registration solely on the ground of the address discrepancy, as the records clearly reflect the additional place of business from where the petitioner carries on its business.
The petition was disposed of by directing the respondents to verify whether the petitioner has been carrying on its business from its additional place of business within a period of three weeks from the date.
The petitioner is also at liberty to file documents and material relevant for establishing that it has been carrying on its business from the additional address. If satisfied, the Proper Officer would take immediate steps for restoration of the petitioner’s GST registration, and the petitioner shall take immediate steps to rectify the record by making a proper application for deletion of its principal place of business as reflected in its registration certificate dated 17.07.2018.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
