Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2025 (2) TMI 842 - HC - GSTCancellation of registration of the petitioner - registration had been obtained by fraud/willful misstatement or suppression of material facts as enumerated in Section 29(2)(e) of the Act - non-consideration of the documents relied upon by the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is true that the petitioner had relied upon the electricity bills issued in the name of Tarak Nath Pandey as also the leave and licence agreement. It is noted that the leave and licence agreement dated 12th October 2018 was valid for a period of 11 months. No attempt has been made by the petitioner to establish the factum payment of licence fee of Rs. One thousand per month to the said Tarak Nath Pandey. No attempt has also been made to demonstrate that the petitioner had been making payment of electricity charges to the said Tarak Nath Pandey for occupying the room in question in terms of the leave and licence agreement. The certificate of enlistment issued in favour of the petitioner for the assessment year 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 though cannot be doubted which was available upto 31th March 2020 however at the same time one cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner had not challenged the observations as regards the spot visit by the Bureau of Investigation. No attempt was made by the petitioner to respond to the show cause or to appear before the appellate authority. Having regard thereto the inference drawn by the Proper Officer in the facts of the case appears to be plausible one. The above order does not appear to be one which is based on no evidence or can be said to be perverse. As such no interference is called for. Conclusion - The petitioner s failure to provide sufficient evidence to refute the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation led to the dismissal of the writ petition. Petition dismissed.
|