2024 (5) TMI 865 - HC - GST

Cancellation of registration of petitioner - order for cancellation of registration has been passed without any application of mind - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - In the present case the facts are similar to one in Surendra Bahadur Singh s case 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 22 2023 and the appellate order dated April 4 2024 are quashed and set aside - the writ petition is allowed.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to order for cancellation of registration u/s 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 due to lack of application of mind and absence of reasons in the original order.

The judgment addresses the challenge to the order for cancellation of registration under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contested the cancellation order on the grounds of lack of application of mind by the authorities. The petitioner argued that the order was contradictory as it mentioned both the submission and non-submission of a reply by the petitioner. Reference was made to a Division Bench judgment emphasizing the necessity of reasons in judicial proceedings. The court considered previous judgments highlighting the importance of providing reasons in administrative and quasi-judicial orders. The court concluded that the cancellation order lacked reasoning and application of mind, violating the petitioner's rights under the Constitution. Consequently, the court set aside the original order and directed the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice within three weeks for a fresh decision by the adjudicating authority.

The judgment also cited a similar case where a non-reasoned order was set aside, allowing the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice. The court emphasized the importance of reasons in judicial proceedings and held that the cancellation order in the present case lacked justification. As a result, the court quashed the original cancellation order and the subsequent appellate order. The petitioner was instructed to submit a reply to the show cause notice within three weeks, and the adjudicating authority was directed to conduct a fresh hearing before issuing a new decision. The writ petition was allowed with these directions.