2023 (3) TMI 1001

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion of registration has been rejected, as well as the order dated 14.09.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, respondent no.2 in Appeal No.APL1/057/2021, whereby the appeal has been dismissed. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a registered Proprietorship firm and is doing the business in accordance with the Act and Rules. On 15.12.2020, the petitioner changed its business address and in this regard, the petitioner moved an amendment application, which was approved by the department on 09.02.2021. It is stated that on 03.01.2021, a survey was conducted by the department at the earlier place of business and it was found that the firm is not existing/ running from the registere....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... reversal orders were passed and nothing was found with regard to the said firm at the time of survey. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the cancellation of the registration can be resorted to only when the conditions specified in sub-section 2 of Section 29 of the GST Act are attracted. To analyse the said submission, Section 29(2) is quoted hereinbelow: "29. Cancellation or suspension of registration. (1) ... (2) The proper officer may cancel the registration of a person from such date, including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit, where,- (a) a registered person has contravened such provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder as may be prescribed; or (b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ded on 05.03.2022 in Writ Tax No.348 of 2021. The Counsel for the petitioner further argues that for availment of credit, the stand of the respondents is that they are issuing a show cause notice for recovery of the credit wrongly availed as is clear from the perusal of the counter affidavit. In the light of the said averments as contained in the counter affidavit, he argues that on the one hand, the stand of the respondents is that the firm is not existent whereas on the other hand, steps are being taken for recovery of the ITC allegedly wrongly taken under Section 74 of the CGST Act and both of them cannot go simultaneously. The Counsel for the respondent argues that at the time of survey, nothing was found in the firm in questio....