HC levied penalty on officer demanding unnecessary documents for grant of GST registration

Case details: Ranjana Singh v. Commissioner of State Tax - [2022] 136 taxmann.com 391 (Allahabad)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Piyush Agrawal, J. 
  • Aloke Kumar for the Petitioner.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner filed application for new registration. On submission of the application, an inspection was made at the business premises of the petitioner. Thereafter, notice was issued for providing electricity bill or house tax bill or any other document related to the business and reply was submitted along with relevant documents. However, the registration application was rejected for non-submission of electricity bill though PAN and Aadhaar details as well as property tax receipts were provided by petitioner. It filed appeal but the appellate authority too has rejected the appeal confirming the order of rejection. It filed writ against the rejection of registration application and appeal.

High Court Held

The Honorable High Court observed that PAN and Aadhaar details as well as property receipts were provided as per the provisions of the CGST Act and rules. But the authorities without whispering any word or assigning any reason had rejected the application for non-specifying possession of the business premises and insisted for submission of electricity bill. The authorities below have further erred in law in not pointing out any defect in submission of house tax receipt and insisted for submission of electricity bill whereas the notice gave an option for submission of recent electricity bill or house tax receipt. It was held that the petitioner had every right to carry on business lawfully when shortcomings or defects were not pointed out in reply submitted along with documents. The impugned order was quashed and since the authorities had acted only to harass petitioner; therefore, costs of Rs. 15,000 was imposed which may be recovered from erring officer.