9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for hearing today itself. 4. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning a Show Cause Notice dated 22.12.2023 (hereafter the impugned SCN) whereby the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why his registration not be cancelled. The reason set out in the impugned SCN reads as under: "1 As per letter GEXCOM/AE/MISC/764/2023/PT dated 06.11.2023 issued by Deputy Commissioner, AE, CGST, DW, New Delhi, during the physical verification principal place of business fund non existent. The cancellation of GSTIN is initiated under section 29 of CGST Act,2017." 5. The petitioner was called upon to furnish a reply to the impugned SCN within a period of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tanding the same, the proper officer issued an order dated 25.08.2023 cancelling the petitioner's GST registration with retrospective effect from 05.05.2022. The said order did not mention any reason whatsoever for cancelling the petitioner's GST registration. It merely refers to the Show Cause Notice dated 07.08.2023. 9. In the aforesaid context, the petitioner applied for revocation of the order dated 25.08.2023, which was allowed by an order dated 30.10.2023. 10. Notwithstanding that the order cancelling the petitioner's registration was revoked by the proper officer on 30.10.2023, the proper officer once again issued the impugned SCN. 11. It is in the aforesaid background that the petitioner filed the present petition impugning the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above, list on 01.02.2024." 12. This Court is informed that pursuant to the aforesaid order, the premises of the petitioner were once again inspected on 23.01.2024. The Field Visit Report dated 23.01.2024 (hereafter the Field Report) filed by the respondents indicates that the petitioner's premises were found to be in existence. It was also found that stock belonging to the petitioner was stored in the premises. The signboard outside the premises also clearly mentions "Umesh Traders" and mentions the petitioner's GSTIN. However, the petitioner was not present at the premises during the time of physical verification. 13. It is stated that the petitioner did not come to the premises even after the concerned officer contacted him telepho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a person in front of the premises of the petitioner. Mr. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the person as reflected in the photograph is the petitioner's employee. 16. In our view, the same establishes that the petitioner was in possession of the premises in question at the material time. The proper officer entertains an apprehension that the petitioner was non-existent at the principal place of business three or four days prior to the date of the physical inspection. It is the petitioner's contention that the shop in question was lying closed and was opened four or five days before the date of the physical inspection as, prior to that, the petitioner's GST registration was suspended. 17. In the aforesaid ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
