Mohammed Luthfur Rahman vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors.

Held

The Court held that the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration was contrary to the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, the CGST Rules, 2017, and specifically Form REG-01. The Court noted that Form REG-01, which is part of the Rules and used for registration applications, primarily requires proof of the principal place of business and does not mandate the submission of rent agreements for additional places of business. The Court found that the Show Cause Notice and the Speaking Order focused on the additional place of business, for which a landlord-tenant dispute was pending, and an injunction order was in place. The Court reasoned that cancelling registration for failure to submit a rent agreement for the additional premises, under these circumstances, was not justified. The ratio decidendi is that a GST registration cannot be cancelled for non-compliance with a requirement (like submitting a rent agreement for an additional place of business) that is not explicitly mandated by the relevant Act, Rules, or prescribed forms, especially when factual circumstances (like a legal dispute) prevent compliance. The Court set aside the Show Cause Notice and the cancellation order, and restored the petitioner's GST registration from the date of its suspension.

Facts

The petitioner, Mohammed Luthfur Rahman, carrying on business as M/s Euro Fashion, operates from a principal place of business and an additional place of business in Guwahati. He is registered under the CGST Act, 2017 and AGST Act, 2017. A landlord-tenant dispute exists concerning the additional place of business, leading to a pending suit and an injunction order for status quo. The petitioner was depositing rent for this additional premises. On 18.06.2026, a Show Cause Notice was issued for not submitting the rent agreement for the additional place of business. The petitioner's registration was suspended. After a previous writ petition directed the respondent to consider the reply, the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Guwahati, cancelled the petitioner's GST registration on 14.07.2026 for failing to submit the rent agreement for the additional place of business. The present writ petition challenges this cancellation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of GST registration under Section 29(2)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Rule 21 of the CGST Rules, 2017, is justified solely on the ground of failure to submit a rent agreement for an additional place of business, especially when a landlord-tenant dispute and a pending suit with an injunction order exist for that premises? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the cancellation was contrary to the CGST Act, Rules, and Form REG-01. He argued that Form REG-01, used for registration, only requires proof of the principal place of business and does not mandate rent agreements for additional places of business. He also highlighted the pending landlord-tenant dispute and the injunction order as reasons for not being able to submit the rent agreement for the additional premises. He relied on the provisions of the CGST Act and Rules, and the contents of Form REG-01. Revenue's arguments: The respondents argued that the cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to comply with the requirement of submitting a rent agreement for the additional place of business, which they considered a contravention of the Act or Rules.