2024 (3) TMI 1093 - HC - GST

Challenged the order cancelling the registration - barred by limitation - non-application of mind - HELD THAT - Admittedly from the perusal of the order dated 20.01.2022. it transpires that no reason has been assigned for cancellation of the registration of the petitioner. In absence of the same the order cannot be justified in the eye of law. Further since the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of delay this Court finds that the doctrine of merger will have no application considering the facts and circumstances of the present case. Thus the order dated 20.01.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner respondent no.3 is hereby quashed - The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the cancellation of registration of the petitioner and the dismissal of the appeal on the ground of delay under section 107(4) of the UPGST Act.

Cancellation of Registration:
The petitioner challenged the cancellation of their registration by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Lucknow, on the grounds that it was done without following the provisions of section 29 of the Act, and without assigning any reason. The petitioner argued that the cancellation was mechanical and lacked proper reasoning, which is against the law. The Court found that the cancellation order lacked reasons, which are essential for any judicial or administrative order to be justified in the eyes of the law. The Court also noted that the appeal dismissal based on delay did not invoke the doctrine of merger in this case.

Judicial Precedents and Legal Arguments:
The petitioner's counsel cited judgments from previous cases to support their argument, emphasizing the importance of reasons in administrative and quasi-judicial orders. They relied on cases such as Om Prakash Mishra vs. State of U.P. and M/s Chandra Sain vs. U.O.I., highlighting the necessity of providing reasons for decisions affecting the rights of individuals. The counsel argued that the cancellation of registration without proper reasoning violated the petitioner's constitutional rights under Article 19 and Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

Court's Decision and Directions:
The Court quashed the order of cancellation of registration passed by the Assistant Commissioner, directing the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice within three weeks. The Adjudicating Authority was instructed to pass a fresh order after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard and present their defense. The Court allowed the writ petition, finding in favor of the petitioner.

This summary provides a detailed overview of the judgment, highlighting the key issues, legal arguments, court's decision, and relevant judicial precedents cited during the proceedings.