Case Details: M A Enterprises vs. Additional Commissioner Appeals1 (2025) 36 Centax 377 (Telangana)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Aparesh Kumar Singh, CJ. & G.M. Mohiuddin, J.
- Venkatram Reddy Mantur, Adv. for the Petitioner.
- Dominic Fernandes, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner-assessee challenged the cancellation of its GST registration, contending that the registration was valid and that the cancellation was unjustified. The factual sequence reveals that the proper officer cancelled the registration vide FORM GST REG-19 on the grounds that no business was conducted at the declared place of business and the submitted rental documents were forged or inconsistent. Physical verification further indicated that the declared premises were non-existent. On appeal, the cancellation order was affirmed by the appellate authority, which held that the cancellation had been carried out in accordance with law. The petitioner’s writ petition challenged these findings before the High Court. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the findings of the appellate authority were unimpeachable. The Court observed that serious doubts persisted regarding the authenticity of the declared business premises, supported by two rental agreements bearing different dates. The Court noted that cancellation was also based on non-conduct of business from the declared place, constituting contravention of Rule 21A. Applying Section 29 of the CGST Act/Telangana GST Act, read with Rules 21 and 22 of the CGST Rules/Telangana GST Rules, the Court concluded that no ground existed to interfere with the cancellation sustained in appeal and dismissed the writ petition.
