Petitioner wins challenge to GST registration cancellation based on allegedly non-existent business premises verification

Delhi HC disposed of petition challenging SCN cancelling GST registration. Petitioner's principal place of business was allegedly non-existent during physical verification. Court found merit in petitioner's contention that premises existed, noting respondent's conclusion was erroneous as it relied solely on unrecorded enquiries from unnamed shop owners. Field report showed premises existed with petitioner's GSTIN signboard and photograph of person at premises. Court directed petitioner to file response to SCN with supporting documents establishing business existence since registration date, requiring proper officer to consider reply and make informed decision.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to Show Cause Notice for GST registration cancellation based on alleged non-existence of principal place of business.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 22.12.2023, which called for the cancellation of their GST registration due to the alleged non-existence of their principal place of business. The petitioner contended that the SCN was issued without prior notice or proper verification. The petitioner had previously faced a vague Show Cause Notice dated 07.08.2023, resulting in the cancellation of their registration with retrospective effect from 05.05.2022. However, the cancellation was later revoked by an order dated 30.10.2023. Despite this, a fresh SCN was issued, leading to the current petition. The High Court directed a physical inspection of the petitioner's premises, which took place on 23.01.2024. The Field Report confirmed the existence of the petitioner's premises but noted the absence of the petitioner during the verification. The respondents based their conclusion of non-existence on oral statements from unnamed nearby shop owners. The Court found the conclusion erroneous, emphasizing the lack of concrete evidence to support the claim. The Court directed the petitioner to respond to the SCN with supporting documents and instructed the respondents to restore the petitioner's GST registration immediately. The petitioner was given two weeks to submit their response, and the respondents were required to make a decision within the following two weeks.

This judgment highlights the importance of proper verification and evidence in cases involving the cancellation of GST registration. It underscores the need for concrete documentary proof rather than relying solely on oral statements. The Court's decision to restore the registration emphasizes the significance of due process and the requirement for informed decisions based on substantiated facts. The petitioner's right to be heard and provide supporting evidence was upheld, ensuring fairness in administrative actions related to GST registrations.

---