Court rules in favor of petitioner, reinstates GST registration, emphasizes fair assessment without technicalities.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the cancellation of GST registration and rejection of the revocation application. The State respondent was instructed to re-evaluate the case, considering a previous court decision and conducting a physical inspection of the premises. The petitioner was given the opportunity to provide necessary documents and demonstrate actual possession at the registered place. The State respondent was directed to verify the petitioner's existence and business activities through local sources, emphasizing a fair assessment without solely focusing on technicalities.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to cancellation of GST registration under Section 29(2) of State GST Act based on technical grounds, existence of business at declared place, rejection of application for revocation of cancellation, consideration of supplementary agreement, impact on revenue loss and unemployment, reliance on previous court decision.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested the cancellation of its GST registration citing a minor defect in the sub-let agreement, rectified by a supplementary agreement. The petitioner argued that conducting business from alternate locations during the pandemic to comply with Covid-19 protocols should not be grounds for cancellation, especially since taxes were paid to the State authorities timely. The petitioner emphasized that the cancellation was not due to tax evasion but rather a technicality, which, if upheld, could lead to revenue loss and worsen unemployment. Reference was made to a previous court decision supporting the petitioner's stance.

The judge, after considering the facts and circumstances, found in favor of the petitioner. The impugned orders canceling the registration and rejecting the revocation application were set aside. The State respondent was directed to re-evaluate the case, taking into account the previous court decision and the observations made in the current judgment. A physical inspection of the premises was ordered, with the petitioner given the opportunity to provide necessary documents and demonstrate actual possession at the registered place. The State respondent was instructed to verify the petitioner's existence and business activities at the premises through local sources, emphasizing a non-hyper technical approach in making a reasoned decision after hearing the petitioner.

In conclusion, the writ petition challenging the cancellation of GST registration was disposed of with the direction for a fresh consideration by the State respondent, ensuring a fair assessment of the petitioner's situation and business operations without solely focusing on technicalities.

---