2024 (1) TMI 954

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ranted on 25.08.2018 in Form GST REG-06 under Rule 10(1) (Annexure P-4). The Principal Place of Business (PPOB) was shown as B-8, GF-03, Gupta Enterprises, Nirmal Chhaya Tower, VIP Road, Zirakpur, Mohali, SAS Nagar, Punjab, 140603. The petitioner had been put to notice that the registration was liable to be cancelled as there were discrepancies noticed while conducting physical verification and the petitioner was asked to put in appearance on 22.03.2022 vide notice dated 14.03.2022 (Annexure P- 7). 2. Notice of motion. 3. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. A.G., Punjab accepts notice. 4. Keeping in view that the orders arise out of quasi-judicial action of the respondents, we are of the considered opinion that no reply is necessary in the p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... reply. Vide order dated 09.04.2022 (Annexure P-8) by passing a cryptic non-speaking order, the cancellation was done on the ground that the reply has been examined and submissions made at the time of hearing and, therefore, the tax payer had been found non-existent. 7. We are of the considered opinion that firstly the principal order passed was non-speaking as such and would fall foul of the observations made by the Apex Court in M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan and others, (2010) 9 SCC 496 since no valid reasons have been given and neither the fact that any renovation has been carried out has been properly examined, as noticed above. 8. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Section 30 of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lso failed to appear for physical hearing. 9. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered view that a very technical approach has been resorted to by the authorities as such. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the premises in question were the brother's residential house and, therefore, the expectation that the expenses would be shown in the balance sheets of the partnership concern would not be acceptable as apparently it is a residential house and has no connection with the partnership firm concerned. It was not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was not conducting any business as per Rule 21(a). 10. Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Rule 25 of the CGST Rules to submit that verifica....