TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 1329
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate Authority confirming the decision of the original authority. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was issued with Ext.P2 show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the registration of the petitioner should not be cancelled for the following reasons: "1. Rule 21(a) - person does not conduct any business from declared place of business. 2. Rule 21(b) - person issues invoice or bill without supply of goods or services or both in violation of the provisions of the Act, or the rules made thereunder". The reply filed by the petitioner to Ext.P2 is on record as Ext.P3. In Ext.P3, the petitioner stated as follows: I. "Clarification for- Rule 21(a)-person does not conduct any business from d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amining the contentions of the petitioner in detail, dismissed the writ petition by judgment dated 05-10-2023. The petitioner carried the matter to a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench, by judgment dated 26-10-2023 in W.A.No.1859/2023, permitted the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority by filing a statutory appeal. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal by Ext.P7 order after considering each and every contention taken by the petitioner. It is thus that the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the registration of the petitioner was cancelled for two reasons. It is submitted that the first reason was that, according to the officer, the petitioner had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment Pleader, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any case for interference with the impugned orders. A perusal of Ext.P4 order of the original authority will show that the contentions taken by the petitioner had been considered by the original authority, and there was a specific finding that the petitioner was not conducting business in the premises mentioned in the certificate of registration. It is also seen from Ext.P4 that, according to the statement recorded from the landlord of the petitioner, the premises in question were leased out to the petitioner for conducting iron and steel business from 2012 to May 2017, and thereafter no business had been conducted by the petitioner in the said premises. It is also seen tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vu. Each document produced by the appellant is enlisted below and the reason for acceptance/rejection by me is mentioned against each items. a) Income tax return for the assessment years 2015-16 to 2022-23:- The income tax return is filed based on the PAN issued to the assessee and it can even file without a building number. So income tax return cannot be accepted as a proof for existence of running business place at Room No: IX/205. b) Tax invoices and E-way Bills issued by the supplier in the name of the appellant and those issued by the appellant. The invoices and document produced by the appellant proves that the appellant is engaged in bill trading. The appellant receives the goods as per supply invoices and subsequently su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3. e) Form No.17 notice and Form No.1 recovery notice issued by the commercial tax/SGST Department. The appellant produced copies of the said notices issued be the commercial tax/SGST department, which were delivered to him by the postman. Even if business place is not existing, the tapal will be delivered to the addressee, by the postman based on the instructions. In this ease also, the appellant should have received the official communication based on the Instructions given by him to the postman. So these documents also did not prove the existence of the business place at room No. IX/205. To conclude, none of the documents produced by the appellant could not establish the existance of business place of the appellant at room No: IX/2....