Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18. In this case, the negative report (RUD-2) is by the jurisdictional officer who, or whose predecessor, must have issued the GST registration. Thereafter, if it is found that the exporter is not operating from that address at all and the GST registration was wrongly issued, the responsibility rests on the officer who issued the GST Registration and not the Customs Broker. The appellant relied upon the Registration Certificate and if relying upon it is an offence, issuing a registration when the firm doesn't even exist must, logically be a much graver offence and the officer who issued it must be a more serious offender. There is nothing in the RUD (the report of the jurisdictional officer) to indicate as to why and how the GST registration was issued in December 2018 when the firm does not exist at all. We also find that there were other documents procured by the appellant issued by various other authorities which have not been alleged to be, let alone, proven to be fake or forged by the Revenue. Evidently, they also must have been issued by concerned officers like the GST Registration issued by the jurisdictional officer in December 2018. These are: