2024 (2) TMI 1179 - HC - GST

Cancellation of registration has been passed without any application of mind - time limitation - 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 order in original dated December 22, 2022 and the appellate order dated December 27, 2023 are quashed and set aside - Petition allowed.

Summary

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 lack of application of mind in passing the orders by the tax authorities.

Cancellation of Registration:
The petitioner challenged the order for cancellation of registration dated December 22, 2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Etawah, and the order dated December 27, 2023, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal), State Tax, Etawah under Section 107 of the Act. The petitioner argued that the cancellation was done without proper application of mind, citing discrepancies in the order's content. The petitioner relied on previous judgments emphasizing the need for reasons in judicial proceedings and contended that the order lacked justification for such a severe action. The court set aside the impugned orders, directing the petitioner to file a reply to the show-cause notice within three weeks for a fresh adjudication.

Lack of Application of Mind:
The petitioner contended that the order for cancellation of registration was passed without proper application of mind, as evident from discrepancies in the order's content. The petitioner referenced a Division Bench judgment highlighting the importance of reasons in administrative or quasi-judicial orders. It was argued that the lack of reasoning in the order violated constitutional rights and did not comply with the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court agreed with the petitioner, holding that the orders lacked justification and did not meet the requirements of Article 14. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the petitioner was given the opportunity to present a defense in response to the show-cause notice for a fresh adjudication.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the High Court of Allahabad allowed the writ petition, quashing the order for cancellation of registration and the appellate order. The court directed the petitioner to file a reply to the show-cause notice within three weeks for a fresh adjudication by the adjudicating authority. The court emphasized the importance of proper application of mind and the need for reasons in administrative or quasi-judicial orders, ensuring compliance with constitutional principles and fair procedural requirements.