2024 (3) TMI 679 - HC - GST

Rejection of petitioner's application for grant of registration by a non-speaking order - violation of principles of natural justice - The petitioner, a successful Resolution Applicant under the Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP under IBC) - HELD THAT - In absence of any consequence shown to have been provided by any law and in face of any other undoubted position that registration granted may apply prospectively and further since the petitioner is not claiming the registration retrospectively, it is found constrained to observe that the order rejecting the grant of registration is practically an order infringing on the petitioner's fundamental right to carry on business. Since facts are not in dispute and the issue is wholly with respect to registration which only enables the business to abide by the regulatory laws and further since there is no objection on part of the revenue authorities that the petitioner is seeking registration for business purpose, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit. The impugned order dated 27.02.2024 is quashed - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues involved: Registration denial to successful Resolution Applicant under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Summary:
The petitioner, a successful Resolution Applicant, had their Resolution Plan accepted by the National Company Law Tribunal. Despite this, the Registering Authority denied registration to the petitioner, hindering their ability to engage in lawful business activities. The earlier rejection of registration was set aside by the Court, emphasizing the importance of granting registration for lawful business operations. The Registering Authority's subsequent rejection was deemed to infringe on the petitioner's fundamental right to carry on business. As the issue solely pertained to registration enabling compliance with regulatory laws, and there were no objections from revenue authorities regarding the petitioner's business purpose, the Court allowed the petition, quashed the order of rejection, and directed the Assistant Commissioner to consider the petitioner's application for registration promptly.

The Court highlighted that registration is essential for conducting business activities within the legal framework and ordered the Registering Authority to review the petitioner's application for registration promptly, considering the disclosed activities. The Court emphasized the importance of enabling registered persons to engage in lawful activities involving tax incidence and stressed the significance of granting registration to facilitate business operations. The decision aimed to uphold the petitioner's right to carry on business without undue hindrance, ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements and enabling lawful transactions of goods and services.