TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25 requires inspection to be done in the presence of the person whose property is being inspected, it was not done as the petitioner had no notice of the inspection - the perusal of the order dated 09.12.2020 clearly discloses that there is no tax outstanding qua the petitioner. The order of cancellation set aside - The respondents will ensure that the petitioner s registration is revived. - W.P.(C) 8451/2021, CM Nos.26176/2021 & 28634/2021 - - - Dated:- 26-4-2022 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE POONAM A. BAMBA Petitioner Through: Mr. Harish Bindumadhavan and Mr. Ashwini Chandrasekharan, Advs. Respondents Through: Mr Manoj Kumar Tyagi, Sr. Panel Counsel for UOI/R-1. Mr Sameer Vashisht, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23.11.2020, a reply was filed wherein the following reasons were furnished by the petitioner, as to why it wished to continue with its registration. For the sake of convenience, the relevant part of the said reply is extracted hereafter: In relation to the notice, the company submits the following: 1. The company was operating from its registered place of business located at D41, 1st Floor, Near BSES Office, Next to Dwarka Mode, Shyam Vihar, Phase 1, New Delhi - 110043 till November 2019 (copy of lease agreement enclosed as Annexure-1). 2. From December 2019 month onwards, the company discontinued its business operations at Delhi and therefore, had not renewed the lease agreement. 3. However, the company did not apply fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of natural justice. 6.1. It is submitted that as per Rule 25 of the Central Goods Service Tax Rules, 2017 [in short 2017 Rules ], before carrying out physical inspection, notice had to be given to the petitioner. However, according to him, notice was not given. 6.2. It is Mr. Bindumadhavan s submission that the petitioner was furnished the report generated on physical inspection having been carried out, only during the course of the proceedings. 6.3. Furthermore, the request made by the petitioner for grant of extension of time via the communication dated 12.11.2020 was not responded to by respondent no.2 and while passing the order dated 09.12.2020, the reply given by the petitioner on 23.11.2020 was not taken into considera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the impugned orders dated 09.12.2020 and 18.02.2021, would have to be set aside. 8.1. It is clear that the petitioner had sought extension of time to respond to the show cause notice dated 11.11.2020. 8.2. In any event, the petitioner was given time to respond to the same in seven working days . The calculation made by the petitioner demonstrates 23.11.2020 was in fact the 7th working day. 8.3. The petitioner, admittedly, filed a reply on 23.11.2020, in which reasons were set out as to why the petitioner wished to continue with its registration. We have already extracted hereinabove, the relevant part of the reply dated 23.11.2020. 8.4. Clearly, when the fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. It is ordered accordingly. 12. The respondents will ensure that the petitioner s registration is revived. 12.1. However, as indicated by the petitioner, once the purpose of the registration is over, it would suo motu apply for de-registration. 13. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 13.1. Consequently, the pending applications stand closed. 14. For the purposes of good order and record, the Registry is directed to scan and upload the copy of the document dated 09.03.2022 so that the same stands embedded in the case file. ---------------------- Notes: 1 . Section 25. Physical verification of business premises in certain cases.- where the proper officer is satisfied that the physical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
