2019 (9) TMI 160 - HC - GST

Petition to Uphold GST Registration Cancellation Denied for Lack of Evidence

M/s Om Trading Company Versus Deputy Commissioner of State Tax & others

The High Court upheld the cancellation of registration under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the petitioner due to the lack of evidence ... Cancellation of registration of petitioner - petitioner failed to prove his e-way bill transaction details - Section 107 of CGST Act 2017 - HELD THAT:- When the impugned order is tested on the anvil of material on record and in absence of any cogent documentary evidence to prove that the bills in question were physically transferred from Agra to Gwalior, this Court does not find any error in the judgment rendered by the Deputy Commissioner as well as Appellate Authority, as would warrant any indulgence. Petition dismissed. Issues:Cancellation of registration under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 based on alleged violation of Rule 21(b) of Central Goods & Services Tax Rules 2017.Analysis:The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, faced a show cause notice on 05/10/2018 for allegedly purchasing Clarified Butter without actual supply of goods, in violation of the Act. The notice invoked Rule 21(b) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Rules 2017, which allows cancellation of registration if invoices are issued without supply of goods or services. The petitioner's registration was subsequently cancelled on 09/01/2019 due to failure in proving e-way bill transaction details.The petitioner appealed under Section 107 of the Act of 2017, challenging the cancellation. The Appellate Authority upheld the cancellation order, considering all facts on record. The decision was based on the lack of evidence proving the physical transfer of goods from Agra to Gwalior, as required by the law. The Competent Authority initiated the cancellation proceedings based on information received from the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Range- A, Agra, which was crucial in establishing the violation.Upon review, the High Court found no error in the judgments of the Deputy Commissioner and the Appellate Authority. The Court emphasized the importance of documentary evidence to substantiate transactions and highlighted the absence of such evidence in this case. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.