2024 (9) TMI 1212 - HC - GST

Cancellation of registration of petitioner - non-application of mind - absence of reasons for cancellation - 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 where the Division Bench 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 is quashed and set aside - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order for cancellation of registration under Article 226 of the Constitution of India due to lack of application of mind, discrepancy in order's content, absence of reasons for cancellation, and failure to provide an opportunity to respond adequately.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the cancellation of registration order, contending it lacked proper consideration and was issued without sufficient reasoning. The petitioner's counsel argued that the order inaccurately mentioned the submission of a reply by the petitioner, while the reason for cancellation stated otherwise. Citing a Division Bench judgment, the counsel emphasized the necessity of providing reasons in judicial and administrative orders. The court referred to previous cases stressing the importance of indicating reasons in quasi-judicial decisions. The court found the cancellation order to be arbitrary and lacking in justification, violating the petitioner's rights under the Constitution. Consequently, the court set aside the cancellation order and directed the petitioner to respond to the show-cause notice within three weeks for a fresh decision by the adjudicating authority.

In another case reference, the court highlighted the significance of providing reasons in judicial proceedings, reinforcing the importance of transparency and accountability in administrative actions. Drawing parallels to a similar case, the court reiterated the requirement for reasoned decisions in quasi-judicial matters. Based on these precedents, the court concluded that the cancellation orders in the present case were unsustainable due to the absence of proper reasoning. Therefore, the court invalidated the original cancellation order and instructed the petitioner to submit a response within a specified period for a reconsideration of the matter by the adjudicating authority.

Overall, the judgment underscores the fundamental principle that administrative and quasi-judicial decisions must be supported by clear and cogent reasons to ensure fairness and legality. By setting aside the cancellation order lacking in justification, the court upholds the rule of law and safeguards the rights of the petitioner to due process and a fair hearing. The ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of reasoned decision-making in administrative actions to prevent arbitrary exercises of power and protect individual rights under the Constitution.