9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 405 - HC - GSTCancellation of GST registration of petitioner - 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 orders impugned herein are liable to be set aside. Accordingly the order in original dated May 13 2020 and the appellate order dated April 3 2024 are quashed and set aside - the writ petition is allowed.
Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment 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. Cancellation of Registration: The petitioner challenged the cancellation of registration dated May 13, 2020, by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Kanpur, and the appellate order dated April 3, 2024, by the Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal), State Tax, Kanpur 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. The Court referred to previous judgments emphasizing the importance of providing reasons in judicial proceedings and held that the impugned orders lacked reasoning. The Division Bench set aside the orders in light of non-reasoned decisions and directed 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 cancellation order was passed without proper application of mind, citing discrepancies in the order regarding the submission of a reply. The Court referred to previous judgments highlighting the necessity for administrative or quasi-judicial authorities to provide reasons in their orders. It was observed that the cancellation order lacked reasoning and did not satisfy the requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the petitioner was given the opportunity to present a defense after filing a reply to the show cause notice within three weeks.
|
