The Delhi High Court has refused the order for the cancellation of the GST registration since the range inspector would have physically validated the premises, not by serving the notice of the physical verification and not in the report generated post to the verification was uploaded on the portal.
The division bench, Justice Rajiv Shakdher, and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has seen that there was an offence of the provisions of Rule 25 of CGST and the order surpassed the show cause notice.
The taxpayer by opposing the order revoking GST registration. The order was on the basis of the show-cause notice. The SCN sees that there would be nothing mentioned as to the cause of why the related authority has asked for the cancellation of registration.
The council laid the applicant to represent that the enrollment would have been taken via bogus, willful misstatement or suppression of facts.
As the principles of natural justice ask to comply with the department, the applicant was rendered to furnish an answer to SCN within 7 days.
A reply was filed by the petitioner to the Show Cause Notices stating that all returned items had been filed. Currently, all GST liabilities fall within the stimulated bracket under the GST Act 2017.
Within 1 month, the order was issued. Under the order, the applicant’s registration was revoked on the basis of the left inquiry of the applicant which would be operated by DGGI, Chennai, concerning the supply of “spurious goods.” The premises of the applicant were physically validated via the range inspector post to obtain approval from the competent head, which revealed that the premises would get sealed via DGGI, Chennai. The order shows that nothing was due from the applicant on the basis of tax, interest, penalty, or cess.
Read Also: GST REG-30 Form for Physical Verification Report by Officer
The court mentioned that the department was not able to provide a satisfactory reply and that the verification report would not get uploaded on the relevant portal. The court ordered the department to restore the applicant’s enrollment.
| Case Title | Balaji Enterprises VS Principal Additional Director General |
| Citation | W.P.(C) 10315/2022 |
| Date | 07.09.2022 |
| Counsel For Appellant | Advocate Anjali J. Manish, Priyadarshi Manish |
| Counsel For Respondent | Sr. Standing Counsel Aditya Singla |
| Delhi High Court | Read Order |
