Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017 --- Cancellation of Registration —- The petitioner challenged an order dated 31.10.2022 passed by Appellate Authority. The respondent vide order dated 22.02.2022, had rejected, the petitioner’s application seeking restoration of his registration. The petitioner also challenged an order dated 09.03.2022, rejecting the petitioner’s claim for refund of ITC. The respondent issued a SCN for rejection of refund of ITC, mainly on the ground of mismatch of payment of taxes, wrong declaration of inverted/adjusted turn-over; the petitioner was non-existent at its place of business. The Respondent issued a separate SCN calling upon the petitioner as to why its GST registration should not be cancelled. The court observed that there is no dispute that the petitioner had over a period from August, 2017 to November, 2022 filed its return and paid the taxes. The physical inspection carried out by the Range Officer had also indicated that a board was found hanging outside the premises which mentioned that the unit has been shifted. The petitioner had produced the rent agreement as well as the electricity bills. Thus, there is no ground for respondent no.1 to believe that the petitioner was non-existent from the date of its registration. There is no allegation that the petitioner had obtained its registration by means of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. Therefore, the petitioner’s registration cannot be cancelled from the date he had obtained the same. The petitioner can not be denied the refund of accumulated ITC solely on the ground that he had not filed the necessary information regarding transfer of business and other returns to establish the transfer of stocks and capital goods.

Held that:- The Hon’ble Court set aside impugned order dated 14.01.2022 cancelling the petitioner’s registration. The respondent no.1 shall initiate proceedings for cancellation of the petitioner’s registration with effect from 31.07.2021 and also determine the amount of tax, penalty or interest that may be payable by the petitioner for not reflecting the transfer of stock and capital goods to the firm. Further, set aside the impugned order dated 09.03.2022 rejecting the petitioner’s application for refund. Respondent no.2 is directed to reconsider the petitioner’s application for refund.