Physical verification of business premises; GST dept failed to issue notice : Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that the GST department failed to issue the notice to the person who must be present at the time of physical verification of business premises.The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that the verification report, though generated, has not been uploaded, as required, in Form GST REG-30 on the common portal.A...
The Delhi High Court has held that the GST department failed to issue the notice to the person who must be present at the time of physical verification of business premises.
The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that the verification report, though generated, has not been uploaded, as required, in Form GST REG-30 on the common portal.
A show-cause notice was served on the petitioner, which required him to appear before the concerned authority. The petitioner's 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.
The petitioner submitted that an application had been filed with the concerned authority, indicating that the petitioner had relocated its principal place of business.
The department contended that since the report was not uploaded on the designated portal, it could not have been considered by the concerned authority.
Rule 25 provides for a statutory regime in cases where the proper officer is satisfied that physical verification of the assessee's business premises is required to be carried out. Where a proper officer is satisfied that physical verification of the place of business of a person is required due to failure of Aadhaar authentication, either before the grant of registration or due to any other reason after the grant of registration, physical verification of the place of business if deemed necessary, is to be carried out in the person's presence.
The court noted that no notice was issued to the petitioner requiring, as mandated by Rule 25, his presence at the time of verification.
The court ordered the restoration of the petitioner's GST registration.
Case Title: Bimal Kothari Versus Assistant Commissioner
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1099
Date: 01.11.2022
Counsel For Petitioner: Advocates Boudhayan Bhattacharya, Anshul Narayan
Counsel For Respondent: Advocate Shourya Dasgupta