2024 (9) TMI 1290 - HC - GST

GST registration cancellation challenged successfully as appellate authority must consider business continuity documentation before address change

D.K. Freight Carrier Proprietor Deepak Kumar Versus Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC allowed petition challenging GST registration cancellation by remanding matter to appellate authority. Court held that petitioner's existence at ... Restoration of Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (GSTIN) - cancellation of GST registration - Change of principal place of business address - HELD THAT:- The issue whether the petitioner was in existence is required to be addressed by considering the petitioner’s document of being in existence at its principal place of business prior to shifting to the new address. As far as the petitioner’s current address is concerned, the petitioner has provided the documents to substantiate that he is in existence including the photograph of the premises bearing the sign board of D K Freight Carrier as well as indicating his name and mobile phone number. The appellate authority has rejected the petitioner’s appeal on the ground that he had not provided sufficient documents as to his principal place of business. Insofar as documents relating to the current address of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has provided the same. It is considered apposite to remand the matter to the appellate authority to consider the matter afresh. The petitioner may file all documents on which it seeks to rely upon to show that he was carrying on the business from the declared principal place of business till he shifted to the current address - petition allowed by way of remand. Issues:- Restoration of Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (GSTIN)- Change of principal place of business address- Suspension and cancellation of GST registration- Rejection of application for amendment of GST registration- Revocation of cancellation order- Appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act/DGST ActAnalysis:The petitioner filed a petition seeking directions to restore his GSTIN, which was suspended and later cancelled by the respondents. The petitioner had applied for changing the address of his principal place of business from House No. 19 to House No. 210-211. However, a physical inspection conducted by the Anti Evasion Team found the petitioner absent at the registered place, leading to a Show Cause Notice (SCN) for cancellation of GST registration. The petitioner's subsequent application for amendment of the registration was rejected due to incomplete information. The cancellation was retrospective, and subsequent requests for revocation were also denied.The central issue revolved around the petitioner's failure to provide documentation substantiating the change of address and the alleged non-existence at the registered principal place of business. The respondents presented a statement from the petitioner claiming to have shifted addresses multiple times, which contradicted the petitioner's assertions. Discrepancies in the filing date of the amendment application further complicated the matter.The High Court noted the conflicting claims and directed a remand to the appellate authority for a fresh consideration. The petitioner was instructed to submit all relevant documents supporting the continuity of business operations at the declared principal place of business until the address change. The appellate authority was tasked with reviewing the new evidence and issuing a revised decision after granting the petitioner an opportunity to present his case.The judgment emphasized the need for comprehensive documentation to establish the continuity of business operations and address discrepancies. By remanding the matter for further review, the Court aimed to ensure a fair assessment of the petitioner's claims and adherence to procedural requirements under the CGST Act/DGST Act. The petitioner's rights and contentions were preserved, signaling a fair and unbiased approach to resolving the dispute.