The central legal point established in the judgment is that the cancellation of registration under the GST Act must adhere to the conditions specified in Section 29(2), and grounds not enumerated in the section cannot justify cancellation.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Pranjal Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 17.05.2021 (Annexure No.9) passed by the respondent no.3, Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Bareilly, whereby the application filed for revocation of cancellation of registration has been rejected, as well as the order dated 14.09.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, respondent no.2 in Appeal No.APL1/057/2021, whereby the appeal has been dismissed.

3. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a registered Proprietorship firm and is doing the business in accordance with the Act and Rules. On 15.12.2020, the petitioner changed its business address and in this regard, the petitioner moved an amendment application, which was approved by the department on 09.02.2021. It is stated that on 03.01.2021, a survey was conducted by the department at the earlier place of business and it was found that the firm is not existing/ running from the registered place. It is stated that a show cause notice was issued on 11.02.2021 (Annexure No.3) wherein it was alleged that the registration is liable to be cancelled on the basis of information received from STF that the firm is not existing/ running at the registered place.

4. It is stated that in absence of the reply to the show cause notice dated 11.02.2021, the registration of the firm was cancelled vide order dated 31.03.2021 cancelling the registration on the ground that as per the information received, the firm was indulged in availing fake ITC credit from bogus firm. It was recorded that the reply given by the petitioner was not satisfactory as at the time of survey, no business activity was found at the given address. It was also recorded that the amendment as alleged was not given before the survey and was an after thought.

5. It is stated that the petitioner thereafter moved an application under Section 30 of the GST Act seeking revocation of cancellation of the registration. It is alleged that without issuing any show cause notice prior to taking decision on the application seeking revocation, an order came to be passed on 17.05.2021 rejecting the application of the petitioner. In the said order, it was mentioned that despite notice dated 22.04.2021, no reply has been submitted. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.05.2021, the petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed mainly on the foundation that in terms of the information received from various sources, ITC reversal orders were passed and nothing was found with regard to the said firm at the time of survey.

6. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the cancellation of the registration can be resorted to only when the conditions specified in sub-section 2 of Section 29 of the GST Act are attracted. To analyse the said submission, Section 29(2) is quoted hereinbelow:

"29. Cancellation or suspension of registration.

(1) ...

(2) The proper officer may cancel the registration of a person from such date, including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit, where,-

(a) a registered person has contravened such provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder as may be prescribed; or

(b) a person paying tax under section 10 has not furnished returns for three consecutive tax periods; or

(c) any registered person, other than a person specified in clause (b), has not furnished returns for a continuous period of six months; or

(d) any person who has taken voluntary registration under sub-section (3) of section 25 has not commenced business within six months from the date of registration; or

(e) registration has been obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts:

Provided that the proper officer shall not cancel the registration without the person an opportunity of being heard:

[Provided further that during pendency of the proceedings relating to cancellatio