M A Enterprises Vs Additional Commissioner (Appeals 1) (Telangana High Court)
The Telangana High Court upheld the cancellation of GST registration after authorities found that the taxpayer’s declared place of business did not exist and the rental documents submitted were forged. During inspection, officials confirmed that no business activity was carried out at the registered premises, and the property owner denied ever renting it to the taxpayer. The petitioner later submitted two contradictory rental agreements for a new address, further casting doubt on the genuineness of documents. The appellate authority concluded that the registration was fraudulently obtained and that no credible evidence was provided to rebut findings of non-existence of business operations, as required under Section 29 and Rule 21/21A of the CGST Rules. The High Court held that the cancellation followed due process and that retrospective cancellation was justified, rejecting the petitioner’s claims of violation of natural justice. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, affirming the validity of the cancellation.
Facts:
M/s. M.A. Enterprises (“the Petitioner”) received the GST registration cancellation order (“the Impugned order”) dated March 11, 2025 with effect from January 31, 2025. The cancellation was done under Rule 22(3) of the CGST Rules, because the petitioner was not carrying out any business at the declared place of business. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which was also rejected on the grounds that during inspection, there was no business entity by the name M/s. M.A. Enterprises at the registered premises.
