https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760790 The HC held that suspension of GST registration was improper where authorities demanded NOC from landowner for additional place of business. The petitioner had valid GST registration since 2017 with amended registration in 2019, operating from principal and additional business premises for four years. The court found that Rule 19 of GST Rules does not require NOC for adding additional place of business, unlike Rule 8 which requires NOC only for principal place registration. The suspension order showed non-application of mind as it suspended entire registration while NOC was demanded only for additional premises. The writ petition was maintainable despite alternative remedy availability. The court quashed the suspension order and restored GST registration, allowing continued business operations. en-us Wed, 23 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 May 2026 14:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760790 The HC held that suspension of GST registration was improper where authorities demanded NOC from landowner for additional place of business. The petitioner had valid GST registration since 2017 with amended registration in 2019, operating from principal and additional business premises for four years. The court found that Rule 19 of GST Rules does not require NOC for adding additional place of business, unlike Rule 8 which requires NOC only for principal place registration. The suspension order showed non-application of mind as it suspended entire registration while NOC was demanded only for additional premises. The writ petition was maintainable despite alternative remedy availability. The court quashed the suspension order and restored GST registration, allowing continued business operations. Case-Laws GST Wed, 23 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760790