Cancellation of GST registration must comply with statutory provisions, and authorities bear the burden to prove non-compliance.

JUDGMENT

Alok Mathur, J.

Heard Sri. Rishi Raj Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel on behalf of the respondents.

2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of cancellation of registration under U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 vide order dated 1.6.2023 as well as rejection of the application for revocation vide order dated 2.9.2023 and also rejection of his appeal against both the aforesaid orders by means of order dated 30.11.2023.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a partner ship firm duly engaged in business of trade of glass and glass sheets and has been registered under U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2017) having its GST registration No.09AENFS8166C1ZK. It is further submitted that it is transacting business and filing its returns. It is further stated that returns pertaining to financial years 2021-22 and 2022 -23 have been filed.

4. The grievance of the petitioner in the present case has occurred on account of the order dated 1.6.2023 where the registration of the petitioner under the Act of 2017 has been cancelled by Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector 5, Ayodhya. It was found that the petitioner does not conduct any business at the declared place of business and that he does not submit any response to the show cause notice issue to him and accordingly his registration was cancelled.

5. Against the said order of cancellation the petitioner had moved an application for revocation of the said order. Along with his application he had moved another application for a fresh inspection business premises. As per the application submitted by the petitioner the premises were inspected on 21.7.2023 where no goods were found on the said place of business where the landlord was present and whose signatures and other identifications papers were taken by the inspecting team. The landlord has submitted lease agreement dated 23.6.2011 entered into between the petitioner and the landlord.

6. While rejecting the application for revocation it was stated that no goods were found in the business premises of the petitioner and also that signature of the landlord did not match from two rent agreements entered into between the petitioner and the landlord.

7. Aggrieved of the aforesaid two orders the petitioner had filed an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 (11) of CGST and SGST Act. Before the appellate authority it was submitted that the findings returned by both the authorities were perverse and arbitrary in as much as the petitioner has duly filed his returns i.e. GSTR 3B and GSTR-1 of financial year 2021- 22 where a sale of Rs. 47,01,234/- was recorded as well as return for financial year 2022-23 where sale of Rs. 1,41,79,965/- was recorded. It was stated that the returns were duly accepted by the authorities concerned and there was no material to demonstrate that the firm was bogus or that no business was conducted by the petitioner. The appellate authority also went into the entire facts but it laid more emphasis on the fact that business premises where the petitioner is alleged to have conducted his business no material or business activity was found and it was also found that the signatures of the landlord did not tally and it was concluded that it was a sham registration and the appeal was dismissed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders on the face of its is illegal and arbitrary. He submits that the petitioner has submitted fresh evidence to disclose that business activities was undertaken by him from the place of business which has clearly demonstrated by the return for the financial years 2021-22 and 2022-23. He further submits that cancellation of registration can taken place where only condition provided under Section 29 sub clause 2 of the Act of 2017 are fulfilled. For the sake of convenience sub clause 2 of th