GST Library
Subscription single-user
Subscription multi-user
Taxreply tweets
About GST Library
GST News
GST Calender
E-Books
GST Case Laws
GST Notifications
GST Act / Rules
GST Rates
GST Set-off Calculator
GST Forms
Full Site Search
Classification (Chapters)
Classification (Search)
E-way Bill
Finance Bill
TaxReply India Pvt Ltd.

Cancellation of GST Registration is valid as the petitioner has failed to prove physical movement of goods transported: High Court

It is also settled practice that the transporters used to choose shortest route available to transport the goods in order to save time and money. In the present case, the route used to transport the goods is not only longer route but also takes more time to reach the destination. It is very surprising and strange that instead of using four lane high way, some alternative route, which is longer, has been used by the appellant. Cancellation of registration of GSTN was effected after affording due opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

- Revenue 

 


 

Petitioner

Brief facts leading to filing of the writ petition were that the appellant is a dealer registered under the Central GST Act, 2017 and is engaged in carrying on the business of selling and purchasing of Clarified Butter (Ghee), Butter and other milk products.

On 05.10.2018, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax Gwalior, in which it was stated that the appellant is carrying on the business only on papers and the e-way bills are downloaded but the concerned vehicles are not transporting any goods in actual.

The cause of action action arose when the report bearing No.229/Deputy Commissioner's office dt.29.08.2018 was addressed by the Dy. Commissioner, Range- A, Agra to the Joint Commissioner, Gwalior, whereby it transpired that the appellant had carried out business transactions with one M/s Macro International and has purchased 8100 kgs. of clarified butter through bill No.53 on 31.07.2018 amounting to ₹ 23,49,000/- and again purchased 1000 Tin of clarified butter through bill No.54 amounting to ₹ 40,50,000/-.

In view of aforesaid, a show cause notice dt.05.10.2018 was issued as it was found that the bills were without supply of goods in violation of stipulations contained in the Act of 2017. The notice was purportedly issued under Rule 21 (b) of the Central GST Rules 2017, which mandates that the registration granted to the person is liable to be cancelled, if the person issued invoice or bill without supply of goods or services in violation of the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder.

Since the appellant failed to prove his e-way transaction details, his registration has been cancelled by order dt.09.01.2019.

Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal under Section 107 of the Act of 2017. The Appellate Authority taking into consideration the entire facts on record, affirmed the order passed by the Dy. Commissioner of State Tax.

Being aggrieved, the appellant had filed writ petition before this Court bearing W.P.No.9885/2019, which came to finally decided on 27.08.2019, whereby the orders passed by the Dy. Commissioner of State Tax as well as Appellate Authority has been affirmed. Being aggrieved, the present Writ Appeal has been filed.

Revenue

Shri R. P. Singh Kaurav, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/State contended that the appellant had failed to bring on record any material before the authorities to show that the bills/e-way bills which were issued and are in question in the present litigation pursuance to which any material physically transferred from Agra to Gwalior or not and therefore there is no infirmity in the order dt.27.08.2019 passed by the writ court. He further contended that even assuming for the sake of argument that the alleged contentions of the appellant are true, in that case there are number of toll plaza between Morena to Gwalior and if the goods had been physically transferred, the appellant ought to have possessed the toll plaza receipts.

It is also settled practice that the transporters used to choose shortest route available to transport the goods in order to save time and money. In the present case, the route used to transport the goods is not only longer route but also takes more time to reach the destination. It is very surprising and strange that instead of using four lane high way, some alternative route, which is longer, has been used by the appellant. Cancellation of registration of GSTN was effected after affording due opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

Held

On going through the order passed by the appellate authority it appears that the detailed enquiry was conducted before passing the impugned order, in which certain discrepancies were found with regard to the business of the appellant. It was found that the appellant had failed to prove eway bill transaction details, therefore, the registration was cancelled. A proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the appellant. No cogent documentary evidence is available on record to justify the stand taken by the appellant. The learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion and dismissed the writ petition.

The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant are of no assistance to the appellant inasmuch as the facts of those cases and the present case are altogether different. In the present case, in the detailed enquiry it was found that no material physically transferred from Agra to Gwalior.

In view whereof, no fault can be found in the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge as well as learned appellate authority. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

 



Read Full Case

Subscribe to Complete GST Library

Published by

TaxReply

on Apr 16, 2021

Comments


Show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner/Applicant under Rule 21(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 which mandates that the registration granted to the person is liable to be cancelled, if the person issued invoice or bill without supply of goods or services in violation of the provisions of the Act, or the rules made thereunder. Neither bill No. 53, dated 31.07.2018 nor bill No. 54 appears to be issued by the Petitioner/Applicant.
By: Arindam Sarkar | Dt: Apr 25, 2021


Post your comment here !


7124