Application For Revocation Of Cancellation Of GST Registration Rejected Just Because Taxpayer Did Not Respond To SCN: Delhi HC Revives Application
Pankaj Bajpai
27 Dec 2024 7:35 PM IST
The Delhi High Court held that the application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration could not have been dismissed, when apart from using the phrase “any supporting documents” and “others”, no further reason was assigned as to why the said application was dismissed.The High Court held so, while observing that the solitary reason which has weighed upon the respondent to...
The Delhi High Court held that the application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration could not have been dismissed, when apart from using the phrase “any supporting documents” and “others”, no further reason was assigned as to why the said application was dismissed.
The High Court held so, while observing that the solitary reason which has weighed upon the respondent to reject that application was a failure on the part of petitioner to respond to a SCN.
While rendering the order of appellate authority as unsustainable, the Division Bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma observed that the site which was inspected and which was stated to be the place from where business was being carried on, was found to be in conformity with the disclosures made in the original registration certificate.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner/ Assessee received a Show cause notice (SCN), based on an allegation that it was not conducting business at the declared place and that it was issuing invoices without any corresponding supply of goods or services. Later, the SCN proceedings came to be finalised, by cancelling its GST registration. The charges were upheld by the authority, and it was additionally held that the firm was involved in passing on of inadmissible ITC without actual supply of goods & services.
The appellate authority also affirmed the cancellation of GST registration. In the meanwhile, the petitioner also applied for revocation of the order by which its registration had come to be cancelled, which too was dismissed.
Observations of the High Court:
The Bench noted that the appellate authority has instructed the GST Inspector to undertake a field inspection, who found that the firm was in fact functioning at the registered place of business and that sufficient stocks of goods were also maintained.
However, the Bench pointed that appellate authority was convinced to dismiss the appeal solely on the ground that the GST Inspector had also alleged in its report that the address particulars which were mentioned were different from those which existed on their record.
From perusal the Inspection Report, the Bench observed that the location details were the same as those mentioned in the original certification of registration.
Thus, the appellate authority appears to have confused the issue by virtue of the declarations which were made in respect of the residential address of the petitioner, added the Bench.
Hence, the High Court allowed the assessee's petition and quashed the order of the appellate authority as well as the order pursuant to which the revocation application came to be dismissed.
Counsel for Petitioner/ Assessee: RP Singh, Yash Aggarwal, Aman Sinha & Ayush Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Respondent/ Revenue: Rajeev Aggarwal, Shubham Goel & Mayank Kamra
Case Title: MS Enterprises vs. Sales Tax Officer
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 10496/2024
