The Delhi High Court has refused the cancellation order of GST enrollment because no notice was served before the examination of the place.
The applicant, Micro Focus software solutions India private limited obtains a show-cause notice mentioning that not been found functioning or existing at the given address. From December 2019 month onwards, the company has stopped its business operations in Delhi said the applicant opposed show cause notice and hence, does not renew the lease agreement. But, the firm did not apply for the GST enrollment cancellation on the basis of practical business issues.
The applicant moreover submitted to the department via its reply that the firm is in the process of preparing and filing Form GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C for FY 2018-19 i.e due for filing by 31 December 2020 and would apply for cancellation of registration suo-Motu post-filing of GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C for FY 2018-19 and filing of refund claim towards the surplus payment of tax made during FY 2018-19.
The respondent without recognizing the answer refused the GST enrollment of the company. The applicant has applied for the revocation of the cancellation, which was indeed refused by the council. Thus the applicant furnishes a writ application with respect to the order of the department for the GST registration cancellation and with respect to the dismissal of the application towards the revocation of this cancellation.
Mr. Harish Bindumadhavan, advocate appears on the grounds of the applicant submitted that there exists a complete violation of the laws of natural justice. Under rule 25 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Rules, 2017, prior to examining a physical inspection, notice needs to be given to the applicant. The counsel towards the petition submitted that no notice was given to the petitioner.
The division bench presided by Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Ms. Justice Poonam A. Bamba sees that the applicant furnished an answer. When the GST enrollment cancellation order was passed, the officer had with him the answer furnished by the applicant. But there is no reference to the mentioned answer or the causes set out in it, in the cancellation order.
The High court sees that the order in which the application for revocation was rejected and the same mentioned that an inspection was being done inside the applicant’s premises. Rule 25 needs an inspection to be performed in the presence of the individual whose property would get inspected, it was not performed as the applicant held no notice for examination.
