2021 (11) TMI 820 - HC - GST

Cancellation of registration of petitioner - absence of any reply being filed to the show cause notice - requirement of granting opportunity of hearing or not - Rule 22 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT - In the admitted facts of the present case, though no reply may have been furnished by the petitioner still, it was incumbent on respondent no.2 to fix a date and afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in compliance of the first proviso to Section 29(2) of the Act. In view of such facts, no useful purpose would be served in keeping in the present petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit as the instructions received by the learned Standing Counsel are complete with respect to the issue being dealt with by the Court. The order dated 29.06.2019 issued by respondent no.2 is set aside - Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to cancellation of registration under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 without proper procedure.

Analysis:
The judgment addressed the challenge against the cancellation of registration granted under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the impugned order lacked procedural fairness as no show cause notice was issued, no reply was called for, and no hearing date was communicated. The respondent argued that since a show cause notice was uploaded on the GST portal and visible to the petitioner, no further hearing opportunity was required under Rule 22 of the Rules.

The Court emphasized the importance of natural justice principles in such matters, highlighting that the cancellation of registration could significantly impact the petitioner's business. The Court noted that under the first proviso to Section 29(2) of the Act, a hearing opportunity is mandatory before canceling registration. The reliance on Rule 22 of the Rules by the respondent was deemed misconceived, as statutory provisions dictate the necessity of issuing a show cause notice and providing a hearing before cancellation.

Despite the petitioner not furnishing a reply, the Court held that it was the duty of the respondent to schedule a hearing in compliance with the Act. Therefore, the Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order of cancellation and instructing the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice within two weeks. The respondent authority was directed to consider the reply and make a decision in accordance with the law. The judgment ensured procedural fairness and adherence to statutory requirements in the cancellation process.