2024 (2) TMI 173

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the petitioner which was subsequently affirmed by the order dated 19th September, 2023 passed by the respondent no. 3 i.e. the appellate authority. 2. On the basis of an inspection carried out at the declared place of business of M/s Hindusthan Enterprise on 15th June, 2023, a report was prepared by the Joint Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax Authority, being the respondent no. 1, wherein it was observed that the registered taxable person (for short "RTP") has suppressed its outward supply to evade tax in contravention of the provisions of CGST Act, 2017 and WBGST Act, 2017 read with Rules framed thereunder. 3. Thereafter the show cause notice dated 10th July, 2023 was issued asking the petitioner to show cause as to why her registration....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mment and/or submission with regard to the business of the petitioner. 8. Mr. Bhattacharyya further submits that though the address of the place of business of the petitioner as well as her husband is same, but the fact remains that the petitioner and her husband are carrying on business from well demarcated portions of the said property. 9. He further submits that the books of accounts of the petitioner as well as her husband are being maintained separately. 10. He submits that the respondent authorities while cancelling the registration of the petitioner was swayed by the fact that the signboard of the petitioner Enterprise was not available at the entry point of the business premises. 11. Mr. Agarwal, learned advocate appearing for t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ade his observations only on the basis of the statements of the husband of the petitioner and it does not appear from the said report that the petitioner herein was given any opportunity to explain as to whether the declared place of business of M/s Jupiter Infotrack was a demarcated one or as to whether the stock is in physical existence in so far as the business of the petitioner is concerned. 17. It also appears that the purpose of inspection was to inspect the declared place of business of the husband and not of the petitioner. 18. It was observed in the said report that the petitioner/RTP contravened Rule 18(2) of CGST Rules, 2017 and WBGST Rules, 2017. It was also observed in the said report that the RTP has suppressed its outward s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on of Rule 21(a) and 21(b) only whereas the provisions contained in Rule 21(e) was also invoked for cancelling the registration of the petitioner when the same was not the ground of show cause notice. 22. It further appears from the order of the adjudicating authority that no signboard of the business of the petitioner (though mentioned in the order as Galaxy Infotrack) is displayed at the entry of the declared place of business. 23. It appears to this court that the adjudicating authority also invoked Rule 18(2) while cancelling the registration although the same was not an allegation in the show cause notice. 24. It is the cardinal principle that the show cause notice must contain the allegation on which the authority proposes to initi....