The Delhi High Court, in a case involving retrospective cancellation of registration despite an amended place of business, directed that “the GST Department may re-inspect the petitioner’s new premises and obtain a physical inspection report”.
The Division Bench, including Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain, cited that the officials of the GST Department must be required to re-inspect the new premises for Show Cause Notice proceedings to continue.
The present petition was limited to retrospective cancellation of the GST registration. Therefore, the High Court recorded submission of the Central Goods and Services Tax Department, Delhi, that addresses were revised multiple times, and therefore, it was feasible that SCN was issued at the wrong address.
For the reason that the taxpayer was not present at the business place therefore the GST registration of the taxpayer was cancelled. Taxpayer, a modification application on August 30, 2024, was submitted by the taxpayer for the change of the address of its business place, which was permitted vide order of amendment dated October 09, 2024.
An SCN was issued before the taxpayer dated September 13, 2024, followed by an order on September 27, 2024, cancelling registration retrospectively.
Insofar as retrospective cancellation of registration, the High Court explained that
“The Petitioner’s place of business, which was amended, ought to have been taken into consideration by the Adjudicating Authority before passing of the impugned order.”
The Central Goods and Services Tax Department, Delhi, concerning the allegation of a claim of bogus ITC, specifies that a bogus availment of ITC investigation is continuing by the GST Department in Jammu and Kashmir against the related entities, including the taxpayer, i.e., Parshavnath Industries. While navigating it to cooperate with the availability of fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC).
The High Court instructed that “the Petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation with all the Departments and action.”
As per that, the taxpayer was allowed to submit a response to the SCN, including a chance of hearing.
| Case Title | Sakshi Goyal Proprietor of MIS Parshavnath Industries vs. Principal Commissioner CGST |
| Case No. | W.P.(C) 16333/2025 |
| Counsel for Appellant | Mr Akash Verma, Ms Aanchal Uppal |
| Counsel for Respondents | Mr Santanu Kanungo & Ms Sayantani Kanungo |
| Delhi High Court | Read Order |
