2023 (10) TMI 339

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r-in-Appeal 45/ADC/Central Tax/Appeal-1/Delhi/2023) dated 21.02.2023 (hereafter 'impugned order') passed by the appellate authority, whereby the petitioner's appeal against an order rejecting his application for revocation of cancellation of his registration was rejected. 3. The petitioner carries his business as the sole proprietor of a concern named, Tool Tech Enterprises. His principal place of business is located in Khasra No. 633, Ground Floor, Near Bajrang Dharam Kanta, Siraspur, Northwest Delhi, Delhi-110042. 4. The petitioner obtained registration with the GST authorities (GSTIN 07APBPK8281R2Z4) on 15.09.2017. 5. A Show Cause Notice dated 17.05.2022 (hereafter 'the impugned SCN') was addressed to the petitioner at Khasra No....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....2022 seeking revocation of cancellation of its registration number. 12. Apparently, the real reason for cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration was a doubt as to whether the petitioner was carrying on its business from the principal place of business. 13. A physical verification of the registered place of business was carried out, however, this was also carried out at KH No. 663, which was available on the records of GST authorities and not, KH No. 633. 14. The petitioner states that he is not highly educated and, therefore, an error had crept in while keying in his address on the GST portal. 15. On account of an inadvertent mistake of punching in his address as KH No. 663 (Khasra No. 663, Ground Floor, Near Bajrang D....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rounds urged by the petitioner before the appellate authority was that the impugned SCN proposing to cancel his GST registration was flawed as it did not disclose any specific reason for cancellation of its GST registration. However, the said contention was not examined. The appellate authority found that the petitioner's appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation and that the petitioner was not found present on physical verification of the registered business premises of the appellant. The impugned order records that the Officers had also proceeded for physical verification of the address (KH No. 633) which, according to the petitioner, was his correct address but had found a firm in the name of M/s SK Engineering Works functioning a....