GST registration cancellation fails where later verification confirms business existence at the registered address, restoring registration.

Cancellation of GST registration on the ground that the business premises could not be verified and that the registration was obtained by fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts could not stand once a later physical verification under Rule 25 showed the business entity existed at the notified address. The High Court held that the factual basis for cancellation had ceased to survive, so the consequential rejection of revocation and appeal also could not be sustained. The cancellation and connected orders were set aside, and restoration of registration was directed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cancellation of GST registration, and the consequential rejection of revocation and appeal, could be sustained when the later verification report showed that the business premises existed at the notified address.

Analysis: The registration was cancelled on the premise that the business activity at the declared premises could not be verified and that the registration had been obtained by fraud, wilful misstatement and suppression of facts. A subsequent report, prepared after further enquiry and physical verification under Rule 25 of the WBGST /CGST Rules, 2017, disclosed that the petitioner no. 1's business entity was found existing at the notified address. In that factual backdrop, the basis of the cancellation ceased to survive, and the consequential orders founded on the cancellation could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The cancellation of registration and the consequential orders were set aside, and restoration of the registration was directed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where subsequent verification establishes the existence of the business premises at the registered address, cancellation of GST registration on the ground of non-existence or unverifiable business activity cannot be continued.

---