Field officer placing reliance on inquiries from unnamed nearby shop owners could not justify the non-existent of place of business

The Delhi High Court in this case, found the conclusion in the field report, which formed the basis of the respondent's case, to be erroneous. It noted that the reliance on general inquiries from unnamed shop owners without any record or evidence could not justify the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration. The court emphasized that the physical verification had established the existence of the premises and that no credible evidence had been presented to prove otherwise.

Directed respondents to restore the petitioner's GST registration immediately. It also directed the petitioner to file a response to the impugned SCN, along with supporting documents, to establish that the principal place of business existed since the date of registration. Also, instructed proper officer to make an informed decision without relying on the erroneous field report.

This judgment underscores the importance of proper procedure and evidence in matters relating to the cancellation of GST registration, particularly the need for due process and substantive proof when verifying the existence of a business.

In this case, Writ Petition filed to challenge impugned SCN which cancelled GST registration on the grounds that the principal place of business was found non-existent during a physical verification. After the petition was filed, the court directed a fresh physical inspection of the premises. A field visit confirmed the existence of the premises and the presence of stock and a signboard displaying the petitioner's GSTIN. However, the petitioner was not present at the time of inspection, and the Field Officer relied on inquiries from unnamed nearby shop owners, suggesting that the shop had opened only three or four days before the inspection.

To read the complete judgment 2024 Taxo.online 2184