The Delhi High Court has refuses to extend the time limit to file the reply to the show cause notice for retrospective cancellation of GST registration citing identity discrepancies and signature mismatch.
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh And Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that in the original petition the petitioner has signed it as “SINGHAL SINGH RAWAT” and not “SINGAL SINGH RAWAT” which was amplified by the fact that the petitioner full name consisted of only SurName Singhal Singh Rawat.
The Petitioner/Assessee Singhal Singh Rawat had originally filed a Writ Petition in Delhi High Court for setting aside retrospective cancelation of his GST Registration.
The Delhi High Court set aside the retrospective effect of the GST Registration and permitted the petitioner to file the response to the Show Cause Notice (SCN) assuming that the same proposed to cancel the petitioner’s GST registration with retrospective effect.
The Delhi High Court gave liberty to the petitioner to provide all documents and materials as are considered relevant to establish that the petitioner was existing at the declared principal place of business till closure of the business in the month of November 2022.
The court further directed the petitioner to file the response to the SCN within three weeks.
The court directed the proper officer to consider the reply and pass the appropriate order after affording opportunity to the petitioner of personal hearing as expeditiously as possible, preferably within the period of two months after the personal hearing.
After passage of almost 7 months, Singhal Singh Rawat filed an Application for extension of time to submit the Reply and gave several excuses for not being able to do so.
The Senior Standing Counsel of CGST, Aakarsh Srivastava had remembered that in the Original Writ Petition, the Petitioner had signed it as “SINGAL SINGH RAWAT” and not “SINGHAL SINGH RAWAT” in all capitals. He had found this peculiar, which was amplified by the fact that the Petitioners full name infact consisted of only surnames- Singhal Singh Rawat. The signature this time was “SINGHAL SINGH RAWAT” and not “SINGAL SINGH RAWAT” in all capital letters.
The Department also provided the Rent Agreement of his Registered premises which were, in which he had signed in running handwriting as “Singhal Singh”.
The court, after seeing glaring inconsistencies, directed Singhal Singh Rawat to be personally present in Court on 16.4.2025.
On 16.4.2025, Mr Singhal Singh Rawat was made to give a sample sign in the Court, and again there was mismatch.
The Court was not satisfied about the genuineness and identity of Singhal Singh Rawat, and dismissed the Application.
Case Details
Case Title: Singhal Singh Rawat V/S Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax (Cgst), Delhi-West
Citation: W.P.(C) 12590/2024
Counsel for the Petitioner: Bhwesh Bhola, Udit Bakshi and Urvashi Dhiman
Counsel for the Respondent: Aakarsh Srivastava, SSC
Decision Date: 16/04/2025
Read More: CBIC Issues Instructions For Processing Of Applications For GST Registration
