TOOL TECH ENTERPRISES v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER & ORS.

📅 June 8, 2026 👤 Team Batuk Consultancy 📂 GST, GST Case Laws

High Court, Delhi

Vibhu Bakhru, Justice & Amit Mahajan, Justice

TOOL TECH ENTERPRISES

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER & ORS.

PL. 43918/2023 dated 25.09.2023Law : GST

Decision : In favour of assessee

Application for revocation of cancellation of registration – Wrong service of SCN – A SCN was addressed to the petitioner at Khasra No. 663, Ground Floor, Near Bajrang Dharam Kanta, Siraspur, Northwest Delhi, Delhi-110042 instead of Khasra No. 633, Ground Floor, Near Bajrang Dharam Kanta, Siraspur, Northwest Delhi, Delhi-110042, proposing to cancel his GST registration for the following reasons: “Non compliance of any specified provisions in the GST Act or the Rules made thereunder as may be prescribed.” – It is the petitioner’s case that the impugned SCN was sent to an incorrect address. the impugned SCN was defective as it did not specify any reason, proposing to cancel the petitioner’s GST registration – Thereafter, by impugned order, the petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled – The said order does not indicate any reason for cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration except for recording that the petitioner had not responded to the impugned SCN and had not appeared before the proper office – Held that: One of the grounds urged by the petitioner before the appellate authority was that the impugned SCN proposing to cancel his GST registration was flawed as it did not disclose any specific reason for cancellation of its GST registration – However, the said contention was not examined. The appellate authority found that the petitioner’s appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation and that the petitioner was not found present on physical verification of the registered business premises of the appellant. The impugned order records that the Officers had also proceeded for physical verification of the address (KH No. 633) which, according to the petitioner, was his correct address but had found a firm in the name of M/s SK Engineering Works functioning at the said premises – Court had granted time for the respondents to once again physically verify the petitioner’s claim that he carries on business from his principal place of business at Khasra No. 633.

Represented By:

Counsel for the Petitioner: Puneet Agrawal & Yuvraj Singh, Advs.

TOOL TECH ENTERPRISES v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER & ORS.

TOOL TECH ENTERPRISES v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER & ORS.

🔒 Premium Content

Quick Link

Get In Touch