TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1006X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng in the present case or not - HELD THAT:- Considering the provisions contained under Section 29 (2) along with the facts of the present case it is noticed that there is no denial of the fact that the petitioner has, in fact, conducted business from the said address in as much as returns have been filed for the financial years 2021-22 and 2022-23 and this fact has not been denied by any of the authorities. Both the authorities should have taken into consideration the returns filed by the petitioner who had disclosed substantial business activities conducted by him for two financial years. Cancellation of registration has serious consequences. It takes away the fundamental right of a citizen etc. to engage in a lawful business activity. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Petitioner : Abul Fazal Jaffrey For the Respondent : C.S.C. ORDER HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Rishi Raj Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel on behalf of the respondents. 2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of cancellation of registration under U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 vide order dated 1.6.2023 as well as rejection of the application for revocation vide order dated 2.9.2023 and also rejection of his appeal against both the aforesaid orders by means of order dated 30.11.2023. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a partner ship firm duly engaged in business of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on it was stated that no goods were found in the business premises of the petitioner and also that signature of the landlord did not match from two rent agreements entered into between the petitioner and the landlord. 7. Aggrieved of the aforesaid two orders the petitioner had filed an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 (11) of CGST and SGST Act. Before the appellate authority it was submitted that the findings returned by both the authorities were perverse and arbitrary in as much as the petitioner has duly filed his returns i.e. GSTR 3B and GSTR-1 of financial year 2021- 22 where a sale of Rs. 47,01,234/- was recorded as well as return for financial year 2022-23 where sale of Rs. 1,41,79,965/- was recorded. It was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... returns for three consecutive tax periods; or (c) any registered person, other than a person specified in clause (b), has not furnished returns for a continuous period of six months; or (d) any person who has taken voluntary registration under subsection (3) of section 25 has not commenced business within six months from the date of registration; or (e) registration has been obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts: Provided that the proper officer shall not cancel the registration without giving the person an opportunity of being heard. [PROVIDED FURTHER, that during pendency of the proceedings relating to cancellation of registration, the proper officer may suspend the registration f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even the signatures of the landlord did not tally in the two rent agreements which were examined by thee authorities. 13. Considering the provisions contained under Section 29 (2) along with the facts of the present case it is noticed that there is no denial of the fact that the petitioner has, in fact, conducted business from the said address in as much as returns have been filed for the financial years 2021-22 and 2022-23 and this fact has not been denied by any of the authorities. Both the authorities should have taken into consideration the returns filed by the petitioner who had disclosed substantial business activities conducted by him for two financial years. 14. Cancellation of registration has serious consequences. It takes a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcise to indicate that the returns filed by the assessee themselves were fraudulently filed only to claim Input Tax Credit. The authorities have failed to discharge the duties and merely because the place of business did not contain any stock the registration of the petitioner was cancelled. 16. It is in aforesaid circumstances that this Court is of the considered opinion that both the impugned orders are illegal and arbitrary and accordingly set aside. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 17. It is open for the authorities to issue a fresh notice on any specific ground mentioned under Section 29 (2) of the GST Act, which proceedings, if any initiated, may be decided on its own merits without being prejudiced by any of the obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
