Case Law Details
Deep Plastic Granules Trading Company Vs Union Of India & Ors (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court recently addressed a dispute between Deep Plastic Granules Trading Company and the Union of India regarding the cancellation of the company’s GST registration. The court’s decision sheds light on the importance of providing sufficient evidence to support claims related to the principal place of business.
The crux of the matter lies in the Show Cause Notice issued to Deep Plastic Granules Trading Company on May 17, 2023. The notice proposed the cancellation of the company’s GST registration based on the alleged non-existence of the company at its principal place of business. The respondents, representing the government, asserted that inspections conducted twice at the premises failed to locate the functioning of the company. On the contrary, the petitioner argued that ample evidence existed to prove the company’s existence at the said location. However, due to the suspension of the registration, the company faced operational hurdles.
The Delhi High Court intervened by allowing the petitioner to file a detailed response to the Show Cause Notice within 30 days. This decision emphasizes the significance of presenting compelling evidence in such disputes. Furthermore, the court directed the Proper Officer to adjudicate the matter within two months of receiving the petitioner’s response, ensuring due process and the opportunity for a personal hearing.
It’s noteworthy that the court refrained from making any judgment on the merits of the contentions raised by either party, preserving their rights and contentions for future proceedings.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Petitioner impugns Show Cause Notice dated 17.05.2023, proposing to cancel the GST registration of the petitioner on the ground that “ found non-existing at the their principles place of business as informed by Anti-Evasion vide letter dated 17.05.2023”.
2. Learned counsel for respondents submits that twice over, inspection was carried out at the subject premises and petitioner was not found functioning at the said place.
3. This is disputed by learned counsel for petitioner, who submits that there is sufficient material with the petitioner to prove that petitioner had existed at the relevant point at the said premises. He further submits that since the registration stands suspended with effect from 17.05.2023, petitioner is not able to operate from the said premises. He, however, prays for time to file a detailed response to the said Show Cause Notice.
4. In view of the above, Petitioner is permitted to file a detailed response to the Show Cause Notice alongwith supporting material within 30 days. Thereafter, Proper Officer shall dispose of the Show Cause Notice within a period of two months of the reply filed by the petitioner and after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law.
5. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor commented upon the merits of the contentions of either party. All rights and contentions of parties are reserved.
6. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Author Bio
