The Kerala High Court ordered the GST Authority to bring back the GST registration as the receipt of the building tax was not being acknowledged.
Advocate Aji V. Dev mentioned the refusal of the order of the enrollment and furnished that respondents have implemented the law beneath subsection (2) of section 29 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 for revocation of registration of the applicant. But the cause that has been provided inside the impugned order has not been in agreement through the powers granted by the respondents for refusal of the enrollment.
It is moreover furnished through the concerned counsel which seems for the applicant that the order for the rejection of the application for the refusal of the cancellation which indeed suffers from non-application of mind and this has an unreasonable order, excluding mentioning any cause towards the rejection of the application of the refusal of cancellation. Learned counsel seems for the applicant who had furnished that the applicant has honestly provided all the important particulars inside the application towards the enrollment and there shall no case build-out through the respondents that the enrollment is to get via application through the means of fraud, intends misstatement or abolition of the scriptures.
Justice AM Badar revealed that the state tax officer, Pala, is the proper officer for the assessment and he is the competent officer to levy provision of rule 25. The state tax officer Pala is indeed the registering head of the applicant. The officer has provided the notice to cancel the enrollment of the applicant in Form GST REG 17, on the grounds of the report of the intelligence officer. It is known that the state tax officer, Pala, will not do any inquiry on his own regarding rule 25. He has been moved towards refusing the enrollment, even the thing that the applicant does not want through the report of the intelligence officer as revealed from the answer conveyed through the applicant.
The court stated that the proper officer need not have proceeded with the cancellation of the enrollment on the grounds of the report of the intelligence officer. The proper officer needs to find out the situation in the correct way, especially when the applicant had produced the receipt of the developing tax from the local authority to verify his authenticity. It is not been implemented through the proper officer. Without acknowledging the document, the registering authority has revoked the enrollment. The application for the retraction of the cancellation of the enrollment has not been accepted through the respondent, excluding the proper inquiry for the concern.
