9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 1295 - HC - GSTChallenge to order cancelling the registration of the petitioner's proprietorship - order dismissed on the ground of time limitation - total non application of mind by the authority concerned while cancelling the G.S.T registration of the petitioner - sufficient reasons for passing of the order not given - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Bar of limitation may bar the remedy of appeal but it does not bar the petitioner's right to seek his constitutional remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the impugned order affects valuable rights of the petitioner and the same has been passed without assigning any reason. The orders dated 21.01.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sector 8, Lucknow and 13.07.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal) State Tax, Judicial Block-3, Lucknow are hereby set aside - Petition allowed.
Issues:
Challenge to the validity of cancellation orders dated 21.01.2021 and 27.04.2021 by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Lucknow; Challenge to the validity of the order dated 13.07.2022 by the Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal) State Tax, Lucknow; Non-application of mind by the authority while cancelling GST registration; Lack of consideration of petitioner's reply in the cancellation order; Unreasoned order not sustainable in law; Dismissal of appeal on the ground of limitation; Right to seek constitutional remedy under Article 226 despite limitation; Setting aside of the impugned orders and direction for a fresh order. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the validity of the cancellation orders dated 21.01.2021 and 27.04.2021, along with the order dated 13.07.2022, which canceled the registration of the petitioner's proprietorship, M/s G.F.T. Fashion, Lucknow. The petitioner contended that the cancellation order of 21.01.2021 displayed a lack of application of mind by the authority as it mentioned contradictory statements regarding the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner argued that the order did not consider the contents of the reply dated 21.01.2021, indicating a failure to provide reasons for the cancellation, rendering it unsustainable in law. The court acknowledged that while the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of limitation, the bar of limitation does not impede the petitioner's right to seek constitutional remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when the impugned order affects the petitioner's valuable rights and is passed without any reasoning. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the orders dated 21.01.2021 and 13.07.2022, and directed the Assistant Commissioner, Lucknow, to pass a fresh order considering the submissions made by the petitioner in the reply dated 21.01.2021 to the show cause notice dated 12.01.2021. The court further granted Respondent No.3 the liberty to initiate fresh proceedings following due process, giving the petitioner adequate opportunity to present their case and considering any pleas raised by the petitioner. This comprehensive analysis addressed the issues of non-application of mind, lack of reasons in the cancellation order, the impact of limitation on the appeal, and the petitioner's right to seek constitutional remedy, ultimately leading to the setting aside of the impugned orders and the direction for a fresh order.
|
