TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court grants relief in GST registration case, directs fresh consideration without irrelevant rejection reasons.</h1> <h3>M/s. WEST BENGAL LOTTERY STOCKISTS SYNDICATE PRIVATE LIMITED Versus UNION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI, STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THE COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND STATE TAX OFFICER, PALAKKAD</h3> The court granted relief to the petitioner in a case concerning the rejection of their GST registration application. The court found certain rejection ... Rejection of registration application - Rule 9(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - deemed registration - scope of GST Act and Rules - HELD THAT:- Since the entire process of registration is through online and there is no physical mode, the fifth respondent suggested that the petitioner will have to file a fresh application. Then what remains is the reasons on which the application has been rejected. The learned Special Government Pleader submits that if this Court decides the issue now on rejected application that would be more an academic exercise. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that these reasons stare at him. This Court has to interfere with such irrelevant reasons; if not the petitioner would be denied registration again. It is to be noted that the petitioner was denied an opportunity to raise objection. Therefore, this Court ought to have relegated the matter for reconsideration by the officer concerned. But that is not possible. Then the only question is whether this Court need to interfere at this stage as a preemptive action; this is a delicate question. The learned senior counsel, in fact, had argued that though this Court has jurisdiction to set aside irrelevant consideration in an order, the Court cannot issue mandamus to give a registration. It is true proposition of law. However, it is to be noted that the rejection is now forming part of the record. The respondents are not willing to withdraw the aforesaid rejection order. In such circumstances, the Court has to consider this matter to the extent on the irrelevant consideration made. The petitioner will have to satisfy all other relevant materials like proving ownership of business through such documents which may be required and also such details which they may be required to be furnished under the GST Act and Rules which are relevant. Since, this rejection would stand in the way of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the matter shall be reconsidered de hors any reasons as stated in the impugned order and a fresh decision shall be taken in accordance with the GST Act and Rules on submitting the application by the petitioner - Petition allowed by way of remand. Issues:1. Rejection of application for GST registration2. Deemed registration under Rule 9(5) of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 20173. Validity of rejection reasons4. Requirement of additional documents for registrationAnalysis:1. The petitioner applied for GST registration but received a rejection notice due to unsatisfactory reply and non-compliance with Act provisions. The petitioner challenged this rejection in court.2. The petitioner sought deemed registration under Rule 9(5) of GST Rules, arguing that failure to act within three days entitles them to it. However, technical issues in communication were raised by the respondents, leading to a debate on the applicability of the deeming provision.3. The Court examined the rejection reasons and found that while some requirements were valid, others, like producing specific lottery service authorizations, were deemed irrelevant and beyond statutory provisions. The Court directed a fresh consideration of the application without these irrelevant reasons.4. The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with relevant documentation and details required under the GST Act and Rules for registration. The petitioner was allowed to reapply without the irrelevant rejection reasons affecting the new application, ensuring a fair reconsideration process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
