GST registration restoration dispute premised on field verification; authority ordered to rehear and decide restoration within three months.

Whether orders rejecting amendment, denying restoration and cancelling GST registration should be set aside where field verification supported the applicant's documentary evidence. The court held that the verification report, owner confirmation and reconciliation of tax/ITC undercut the factual basis for cancellation and that procedural fairness required a hearing; consequence: the impugned orders were quashed and the authority ordered to grant personal hearing and to reconsider the restoration application. The authority must decide afresh on restoration effective from the original registration date within three months after hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the orders rejecting amendment/denying restoration and cancelling the petitioner's GST registration (including the orders dated 31.01.2024 and 28.03.2025) should be set aside and the petitioner's GST registration restored with effect from 12/13 July 2017, permitting a fresh decision after hearing.

Analysis: The petitioner's GST registration was originally granted on 12 July 2017 and later amended. Following an intimation of change of principal place of business and subsequent departmental inquiries, the amendment was rejected and proceedings resulted in cancellation. Documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner (including an affidavit and electricity bill) was subjected to field verification; the verification report records that the property owner confirmed the authenticity of the documents and that the petitioner had vacated the premises on 31.05.2023. The verification also included comparison of tax liabilities and ITC, and correspondence shows the petitioner deposited dues except for an amount attributable to inability to file returns after cancellation. In view of the verification supporting the petitioner's claim and the recorded assurances regarding deposit of outstanding tax once the registration is activated, the factual basis for denial of the amendment/restoration was undermined. Procedural fairness requires an opportunity of hearing and fresh consideration of the petitioner's request for restoration in light of the verified documents and submissions.

Conclusion: The orders dated 31.01.2024 and 28.03.2025 are set aside. The petitioner is permitted to appear before the authority and the authority is directed to decide the petitioner's application for restoration of GST registration effective from 12/13 July 2017 after granting hearing, expeditiously and in any case within three months from the date of this order. The petition is partly allowed.

---