The division bench of the Delhi High Court has quashed the order of canceling GST registration in non–issuance of notice for physical verification of premises.
Petitioner Bimal Kothari filed a writ petition against the order passed by the respondent on 17.12.2018 that the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration without proper physical verification of business addresses. Petitioner’s case that cancellation of registration has been brought about on account of the fact that the petitioner was not found to be in existence at the address available with the respondent.
Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Boudhayan Bhattacharya contended that the petitioner had sent the reply notice to the respondent on 07.12.2018 in response to the show cause notice dated 04.12.2018. That reply indicates the petitioner’s relocation of the business hence both addresses of the petitioner were alluded to in the reply 07.12.2018.
Counsel for the respondent Mr. Dasgupta contented “that since the new address was not uploaded on the designated portal, it could not have been considered by the concerned authority “But the counter affidavit filed by the respondent did not mention the Rule 25 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules,
Rule 25 of 2017 Rules reads as follows:
“25.Physical verification of business premises in certain cases.- Where the proper officer is satisfied that the physical verification of the place of business of a person is required due to failure of Aadhaar authentication or due to not opting for Aadhaar authentication before the grant of registration, or due to any other reason after the grant of registration, he may get such verification of the place of business, in the presence of the said person, done and the verification report along with the other documents, including photographs, shall be uploaded in FOR GST REG-30 on the common portal within a period of fifteen working days following the date of such verification”
After considering the contention of both sides the division bench of Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Ms. Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju observed that the concerned officer deemed it necessary to carry out physical verification of the petitioner’s place of business before proceeding to pass the impugned order, which resulted in, as noticed above, in the cancellation of the petitioner’s registration. Moreover, no notice was issued to the petitioner requiring, as mandated by Rule 25, his presence at the time of verification. Hence the above observation, the benches allow the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
