TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 431
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....APPM 6663N1ZR was cancelled with effect from 31.01.2025, vide Form GST REG-19 dated 11.04.2025, under Rule 22(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (for short 'the Rules'), inter alia on number of grounds including the one that the petitioner has not been conducting any business from his declared place of business. Petitioner preferred an appeal. The appellate authority called for a report from the jurisdictional Superintendent. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Shamshabad GST Division, replied as follows: "In this regard, it is informed that DGGI, Vizag who have booked a offence case the said unit, vide letter F.No.DGGI/ INV/GST/509/2025-Gr.A-0/o. ADG-GGI, dated 20.05.2025 opined that the pra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rishnaveni Nagar, Saroor Nagar Main Road, Hyderabad, Rangareddy, Telangana, 500035. In response, she stated that the aforesaid premises was owned by her; that one Hostel by name Elite Hostel for Men has taken the said premises on rent 8 years back and that still they are continuing in the said premises. Further, she stated that the premises was never rented out to any firm named M/s. MA Enterprises (36CAPPM6663N1ZR) or to any person named Shri Mohammad Abdul Rahman at any point of time and that no business/commercial activity is being carried out by the said firm in the said premises. She stated that the Rental Agreement dated 19.02.2024 said to be executed between her and Shri Mohammad Abdul Rahman is a fake document and the signature on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3.2025; that the taxpayer is running business from the new premises; that the rental agreement between Shri Sriramula Anjaneyulu (new premises owner) and Shri Mohammed Abdul Rahman (Proprietor) was executed on 25.11.2024, but the taxpayer applied for amendment on 18.03.2025. Based on the above, the Superintendent, Saroor Nagar CGST Range vide the aforementioned letter, proposed for restoration of the suo-moto cancelled registration of the subject taxpayer, in the interest of taxpayer convenience. 8. In this regard, this is to bring to your notice that on verification of documents uploaded by the taxpayer in the BO portal, it is noticed that the taxpayer has applied for amendment on 18.03.2025 (i.e. exactly on the date of inspection....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as evidenced by the panchanama drawn on the same date. The owner of the premises, Smt. S.Shilpa Reddy, has categorically denied renting the said premises to the petitioner at any point of time and disputed the authenticity of the rental agreement relied upon by the petitioner, stating the same to be a forged document. Further, the petitioner is held to have furnished inconsistent and contradictory documents in respect of the alleged new premises i.e., one rental agreement dated 25.11.2024, given in physical mode to the Superintendent and another one dated 18.03.2025, uploaded to the BO portal, which raise serious doubts over the genuineness of the same. He further opined that the amendment application for change of address was filed only o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his Court to the findings of the appellate authority quoted above. He submits that the owner of the previous premises, against which registration was obtained, has denied renting the premises to the petitioner at any point of time and has stated that the rental agreement is a forged document. It is submitted that even the amendment application moved for change of the place of business was filed on the same date i.e., 18.03.2025, on which the inspection was carried out by DGGI officials. Moreover, petitioner had furnished two sets of rental agreements of the same premises, one dated 25.11.2024 given in physical mode to the Superintendent and another one dated 18.03.2025, uploaded to the BO portal, which raise serious doubts about the genuine....