Ankit Agarwal vs The Assistant Commissioner, State Tax

Assessee purchased a new Property and uploaded documents for amendment in Registered Place of Business 

Due to some discrepancy instead of 3rd Floor the address was updated as 1st Floor Later after physical visit the Assessee was not found working in his place and regd. cancelled The appellants applied for revocation of such order, which was once again rejected by a non-speaking order When appeal was filed against this Revocation rejection the report of physical verification was brought in and an elaborate order has been passed by the appellate authority. 

The Assesse’s registration was cancelled by alleging that he has obtained registration on the basis of fraud and wilful mis-statement but what was mis-statement was never defined. The appellate authority ought to have set aside such an order and remanded the matter back to the original authority instead of taking the trouble of trying to validate the order with certain reasons by bringing in fresh facts.

In the result, the appeal and the writ petition are disposed of and the order passed by the appellate authority and the original authority are set aside and the original authority is directed to restore the appellants’ registration. 

In my Opinion: Delhi High Court Judgement in Bimal Kothari is best judgement that explains the procedure for physical verification. In fact, Calcutta High Court’s own judgement in case of Ajay Varma is also notable judgement. 

KPM Enterprises judgement of Delhi High Court also caters the issue related to physical verification and report of it. Rule 25 is a neglected rule for department and many professionals also miss it’s understanding and implementation.

In the result, the appeal and the writ petition are disposed of and the order passed by the appellate authority and the original authority are set aside and the original authority is directed to restore the appellants’ registration. 

In my Opinion: Delhi High Court Judgement in Bimal Kothari is best judgement that explains the procedure for physical verification. In fact, Calcutta High Court’s own judgement in case of Ajay Varma is also notable judgement. 

KPM Enterprises judgement of Delhi High Court also caters the issue related to physical verification and report of it. 

Rule 25 is a neglected rule for department and many professionals also miss it’s understanding and implementation.

1. This intra-Court appeal by the writ petitioners is directed against the order dated 29th November, 2022 in WPA No.24899 of 2022. By the said order, the writ petition was directed to be listed for final disposal in the month of February, 2023. However, the Court did not grant any interim order. The appellants being aggrieved by such an order, have filed the
present appeal.

2. We have elaborately heard Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellants duly assisted by Mr. Sukalpa Seal, learned Advocate and Mr. Debasish Ghosh, learned standing counsel for the respondents / State.

3. The short issue, which falls for consideration in this appeal was whether the cancellation of the registration granted to the appellants under the provisions of the WBGST Act, 2017 was just and proper and whether the appellate authority was right in upholding the order of cancellation of the
registration. 

After having carefully perused all the material documents placed in this appeal, we find that the show cause notice, which was issued to the appellants is devoid of any material and is absolutely vague. 

The appellants have not been 2 informed as to what was the alleged fraud and alleged willful mis-statement made by the appellants. The appellants denied the allegations. However, the authority confirmed the proposal of cancellation by a single line order once again without any reason.

Download Pdf:
Ankit Agarwal & Anr

For Reference Visit:
Calcutta High Court

Read Another Case Law:
GST Case Law