2024 (8) TMI 1456 - HC - GST

Doctrine of merger - Cancellation of the registration of the petitioner - no reason has been assigned for cancellation of the registration - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Admittedly from the perusal of the order dated 15.02.2023. it transpires that no reason has been assigned for cancellation of the registration of the petitioner. The order of cancellation is in the teeth of various judgments of this Court as also referred to above. The reasons are heart and soul of any judicial and administrative order. 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. The purpose of inserting the provision under Rule 23 of Rules, 2017 as to service of notice upon the assessee is to provide an opportunity to him to move a revocation application so as to save the registration from being cancelled permanently and his business being hampered. The coordinate Bench of this Court in M/s Ansari Constructions Vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax (Appeals) and two others 2020 (12) TMI 266 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT while dealing with Section 29 of the GST, 2017 and Rule 23 of Rules, 2017, has held that once the Department has accepted the return and there remains no dues, the Department should not obstruct the business of an assessee. The order dated 15.02.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, respondent no.3 is hereby quashed - it is directed that the petitioner shall file reply to the show cause notice within a period of three weeks from today. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Cancellation of registration by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector 16, State Tax, Lucknow.
2. Dismissal of the appeal by the respondent as barred by limitation under section 107(4) of the UPGST Act.
3. Violation of Article 19 and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
4. Lack of reasons assigned for cancellation of registration and dismissal of appeal.
5. Application of the doctrine of merger in the appeal dismissal.

Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: The petitioner challenged the cancellation of registration without following the provisions of section 29 of the Act. The court noted that the cancellation lacked reasons, which are essential for any judicial or administrative order. The lack of reasons rendered the cancellation unjustified in the eyes of the law, especially in light of previous judgments emphasizing the importance of reasons in such decisions.

Issue 2: The appeal by the petitioner was dismissed on grounds of delay, invoking section 107(4) of the UPGST Act. The court found that the doctrine of merger would not apply in this case due to the circumstances surrounding the dismissal. The petitioner argued that detailed reasons for the delay were not considered, highlighting a lack of procedural fairness in the dismissal of the appeal.

Issue 3: The petitioner argued that the cancellation of registration infringed upon their right to conduct business under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner contended that the cancellation was done without due application of mind, contravening the intent of the Act and Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner relied on previous judgments to support their argument regarding the adverse effects of the cancellation on their business rights.

Issue 4: The court referenced previous judgments to emphasize the necessity of providing reasons for administrative or quasi-judicial orders. The lack of reasons in the cancellation order was deemed a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The court set aside the cancellation order due to the absence of reasons, directing the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice for a fresh decision.

Issue 5: The court discussed the doctrine of merger in relation to the dismissal of the appeal. Previous judgments were cited to support the argument that the lack of reasons in the appeal dismissal affected the petitioner's rights and warranted judicial intervention. The court directed the Adjudicating Authority to pass a fresh order after considering the petitioner's defense and providing an opportunity for a hearing.

Conclusion: The court quashed the cancellation order but directed the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice within three weeks. The Adjudicating Authority was instructed to pass a fresh order after considering the petitioner's defense, ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to the principles of natural justice. The writ petition was allowed in favor of the petitioner.