Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration and rejection of revocation were sustainable when the assessee had filed returns showing business turnover and the authorities relied mainly on absence of stock at the premises and alleged mismatch in rent documents.
Analysis: Cancellation of registration under Section 29(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires the existence of one of the statutory grounds. The record showed that the assessee had filed returns for the relevant financial years and the authorities did not dispute the disclosed business activity. The finding that no stock was found at the premises was not by itself sufficient to conclude that no business was carried on. Before taking the drastic step of cancellation, the authorities were required to examine whether the statutory grounds were actually established and whether the returns were fraudulent or intended only to claim input tax credit. The orders did not reflect such examination and the adverse findings were treated as perverse.
Conclusion: The cancellation order, the order rejecting revocation, and the appellate order were unsustainable and were set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: GST registration cannot be cancelled on a mere inference from absence of stock at the business premises where filed returns and disclosed turnover indicate business activity, unless a statutory ground under Section 29(2) is actually established.