Case Law Details
Vaani Enterprises Vs Principal Commissioner of Goods And Service Tax North Delhi (Delhi High Court)
Introduction: The Delhi High Court recently addressed a case involving Vaani Enterprises seeking cancellation of its GST registration. The petitioner cited business closure as grounds for cancellation, while the respondents raised concerns regarding documentation. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the court’s directives and the underlying issues.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Petitioner’s Application: Vaani Enterprises submitted multiple applications for the cancellation of its GST registration, citing the closure of its business. However, each application was rejected due to purported lack of requisite details.
2. Respondents’ Argument: The respondents contended that the petitioner failed to provide necessary information and documentation with previous cancellation applications. They highlighted the absence of proof regarding the change of address and the petitioner’s alleged non-functionality at the registered address.
3. Court’s Observations: The Delhi High Court examined the submissions from both parties and emphasized the importance of compliance with Section 29 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court noted the petitioner’s assurance to furnish additional information as required by the Department.
4. Directive by the Court: In its judgment, the court directed the deemed cancellation of Vaani Enterprises’ GST registration effective from the date of the last application. The petitioner was instructed to provide all necessary information and documents in accordance with Section 29 of the Act, including details regarding the change of address.
5. Continuation of Investigation: The court clarified that while the cancellation of registration was directed, the Department retained the authority to investigate past transactions. The petitioner was obligated to fulfill any dues identified during such investigations, with the right to pursue legal remedies.
Conclusion: The verdict by the Delhi High Court in the Vaani Enterprises case underscores the significance of procedural compliance in matters of GST registration cancellation. While acknowledging the petitioner’s assertions, the court prioritized adherence to statutory requirements. This judgment serves as a reminder for businesses to diligently fulfill documentation obligations and cooperate with regulatory authorities to avoid legal complications.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to allow the application of the petitioner seeking cancellation of GST registration.
2. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel for respondents. With the consent of parties, petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. As per the petitioner, he closed his business and applied for cancellation of GST registration on 02.11.2022, however, the said application was rejected. Thereafter, petitioner once again applied in February, 2023 and three times thereafter but each time, the application was rejected, however, the last application dated 12.01.2024 is still pending.
4. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner had shut his business and as such, is seeking cancellation of its GST registration.
5. Per contra, the case of the respondents is that, each time the petitioner applied for cancellation, petitioner was required to furnish further details. However, since the details were not furnished, applications were rejected. It is contended by learned counsel for respondents that it is only pursuant to the application of January, 2024 that the petitioner has responded to the queries raised by the respondents.
6. As per the respondents, petitioner was not found functioning at the registered address of the petitioner as given by the petitioner in GST registration. Since the petitioner has already shut his business and intimated the Department of the closure of his business, the petitioner could not have been found functioning at the given address.
7. With regard to the contention of the respondents that petitioner has failed to furnish all requisite information, as also failed to furnish the changed address with proof thereof, the case of the petitioner is that petitioner had uploaded a copy of the document bearing changed address.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that in case any further information is required for by the Department in terms of Section 29 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [“the Act”] or any further documents in support of change of address, petitioner shall furnish the same as and when required by the petitioner.
9. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with the following directions:-
a) Registration of the petitioner shall be deemed cancelled with effect from 12.01.2024 i.e. the date of the last application seeking cancellation.
b) Petitioner shall furnish all requisite information in terms of Section 29 of the Act.
c) Petitioner shall also furnish such further information and documents as may be required by the Department in terms of Section 29 of the Act and or change of address of petitioner.
10. It is clarified that respondents would be at liberty to continue and carry forward any investigation or enquiry into the past transactions of the petitioner and in case any due is found against the petitioner, petitioner shall pay the same as and when the same is demanded by the Department, subject, of course, to the right of the petitioner to avail of legal remedies against such demands.
11. Petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
Author Bio
