9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 810 - HC - GSTCancellation of GST registration of petitioner - cancellation of registration has been passed without any application of mind - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - In the present case, the facts are similar to one in SURENDRA BAHADUR SINGH VERSUS STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. COMMERCIAL TAX (GST) LKO. AND 2 OTHERS 2023 (8) TMI 1262 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT , wherein the appeal was barred by time under Section 107 of the Act. However, the Division Bench in Surendra Bahadur Singh's case took into consideration the original order and set aside the same being non-reasoned and allowed the petitioner therein to file reply to the show cause notice. The orders impugned herein are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order in original dated February 16, 2023 and the appellate order dated September 23, 2023 are quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to file its reply to the show cause notice within three weeks from date and the adjudicating authority is directed to proceed de novo and pass order after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are the cancellation of registration under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the validity of the orders dated February 16, 2023, and September 23, 2023. Cancellation of Registration: The petitioner challenged the order for cancellation of registration dated February 16, 2023, and the subsequent order passed in appeal under Section 107 of the Act. The petitioner argued that the cancellation was done without proper application of mind, as evident from discrepancies in the order itself. The petitioner relied on previous judgments emphasizing the importance of providing reasons in judicial proceedings. The court noted that the cancellation order lacked reasoning and did not comply with the requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the petitioner to file a reply to the show-cause notice within three weeks for fresh adjudication. Lack of Application of Mind: The petitioner contended that the cancellation of registration was a quasi-judicial order affecting their right to conduct business under Article 19 of the Constitution. It was argued that the cancellation was done without proper application of mind, as the order dated 07.01.2023 did not provide any reasons for the harsh action taken. Citing legal precedents, the court held that every administrative or quasi-judicial authority must indicate reasons in their orders. Since the impugned order lacked reasoning, it failed to meet the standards of Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, the court set aside the order and directed a fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the petitioner to present their defense. Setting Aside of Orders: Based on the arguments presented and legal precedents cited, the court concluded that the orders for cancellation of registration and the subsequent appellate order were liable to be set aside. The court quashed the original order dated February 16, 2023, and the appellate order dated September 23, 2023. The petitioner was instructed to file a reply to the show-cause notice within three weeks, and the adjudicating authority was directed to conduct a fresh hearing and pass a new order. With these directions, the writ petition was allowed.
|
