Before parting with the judgement, the Court is constraint to observe that the two authorities of the State have acted only with a view to harass the petitioner which cannot be accepted at any cost. This attitude of the respondents in this petition cannot be tolerated as the officers are being State functionary has to act fairly and their action must be in consonance with the provisions of the Acts as well as Rules. - High Court

Facts:

1) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is engaged in the business of providing employment through consultancy

2) Petitioner has applied for GST registration on 17.08.2021 furnishing all the requisite documents as prescribed under the Act, i.e., Adhar Card, PAN card, house tax receipt.

3) On submission of the application, an inspection was made at the business premises of the petitioner on 15.09.2021. All the details, as required by the Serving Officer, were provided during inspection.

4) Thereafter, a notice was issued requiring the petitioner to submit electricity bill or house tax bill or any other document related to the business. In reply to it, information and documents as required were furnished by the petitioner, but by the impugned order dated 23.09.2021, the same was rejected for non-submission of electricity bill.

5) The said order was assailed before the appellate authority, but the appellate authority too has rejected the appeal confirming the order of rejection.

6) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order passed by the authorities are patently illegal, perverse and against the provisions of law. He submits that the provision of the Act only requires for providing documents, i.e., PAN and Adhar as well as the property tax receipt, which were furnished by the petitioner, but without looking into the same, the impugned orders have been passed. Therefore, he prays for quashing the impugned orders.

Below is the order of the appellate authority confirming the order of rejection of officer:

Held:

On perusal of the show cause notice, rejection order and the appellate order, it appears that firstly clarification with regard to the possession of business premisses was required to be specified and secondly submission of electricity bill / house tax receipt was required. The petitioner has submitted the explanation with regard to the nature or possession of the business premisses as the owner and also submitted the house tax receipt in compliance with the show cause notice. But the authorities below without whispering any word or assigning any reason had rejected the application for non-specifying possession of the business premisses and insisted for submission of electricity bill. The authorities below have further erred in law in not pointing out any defect in submission of house tax receipt and insisted for submission of electricity bill whereas the notice dated 15.9.2021 gave an option for submission of recent electricity bill or house tax receipt. Further the petitioner has explained that the property, in which the business is being undertaken, is under the ownership of the petitioner. So the other grounds also falls for non specifying the nature or possession of the property. Further in the grounds of appeal, it has specifically been mentioned that the petitioner’s place of business is under ownership of the sole proprietor. Once the fact which has not only been mentioned in the in the reply to the show cause notice given in the application filed for grant of registration but also in the grounds of appeal, it was bounded duty of the authorities to look into the same and then pass the order in accordance with law instead of their own whims and fancies. Once the petitioner has satisfied the requirement of the law for providing PAN, Aadhar and also house tax receipt / property receipt then the authority should not have insisted for submission of receipt of electricity bill. In the absence of any short comings or defect being pointed out in the reply submitted along with documents, the petitioner has every right to carry on her business lawfully and her right to do business cannot be confiscated in illegal and arbitrary manner.

It is clear from the records that all the documents as required under the Act and law as well as in compliance to the show cause notice were furnished by the petitioner and without pointing out any defect or short coming therein, the application should not have been rejected.

Before parting with the judgement, the Court is constraint to observe that the two authorities of the State have acted only with a view to harass the petitioner which cannot be accepted at any cost. This attitude of the respondents in this petition cannot be tolerated as the officers are being State functionary has to act fairly and their action must be in consonance with the provisions of the Acts as well as Rules.

In view of the foregoing discussions, the impugned orders dated 23.09.2021 and 28.10.2021 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The impugned orders dated 23.09.2021 and 28.10.2021 are hereby quashed. 

The writ petition is allowed with cost of ₹ 15,000/-, which shall be deposited before the High Court State Legal Services Committee, Allahabad within a period of 20 days from today.

The respondents are at liberty to recover the cost from the erring Officer.

☑ Monthly | GSTR-11

GSTR-11 for the m/o Mar 2024 (Statement of inward supplies by persons having Unique Identification Number (UIN)).

☑ Annual | GSTR-4

GSTR-4 (Annual Return) for FY 2023-24 by Composite Taxpayer (Rule 62).

☑ Quarterly | QRMP

Last date for opt-in / opt-out QRMP Scheme for quarter Apr - June 2024 (Rule 61A)