9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 981 - HC - GSTViolation of principle of natural justice - Cancellation of registration of petitioner - non-reasoned order - appellate authority on the ground of its not having powers to condone the delay has chosen not to decide the matter on merit - HELD THAT - The matter is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in case of AGGARWAL DYEING AND PRINTING WORKS VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT 2 OTHER (S) 2022 (4) TMI 864 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT where it was held that The assignment of reasons is imperative in nature and the speaking order doctrine mandates assigning the reason which is the heart and soul of the decision and said reasons must be the result of independent re-appreciation of evidence adduced and documents produced in the case. It is further noticed that the issue with regard to the power to condone the delay beyond the statutory time period prescribed under Section 107 is pending before this Court, without opining on that and concluding this issue to be decided at a future date, the show cause notice and the impugned order of the Appellate Authority requires to be quashed and set aside - the show cause notice dated 29.11.2021 and the impugned orders dated 25.03.2022 and 22.09.2022 passed by the respondent-authorities are quashed and set aside. The GST Registration Number of the applicant stands restored forthwith and decide the matter by following the procedure of law.
Issues:
Challenge to cancellation of registration on grounds of breach of natural justice and lack of merit by appellate authority. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the cancellation of their GST registration on the basis of two main issues. Firstly, they argued that the cancellation order lacked reasoning and violated the principles of natural justice. Secondly, they contended that the appellate authority refused to decide on the merits of the case due to a delay in filing the appeal. 2. The prayers sought by the petitioner included admission and allowance of the petition, issuance of a writ quashing the cancellation order, revocation of the GST registration, and any other appropriate relief in the interest of justice. 3. The petitioner, a civil construction company, had its GST registration canceled after a show cause notice in November 2021, with the impugned order dated March 2022. 4. The appeal to the respondent No.2 was rejected due to being filed after 75 days, beyond the statutory limit of 30 days for condonation of delay, leaving the petitioner with no efficacious remedy. 5. The absence of a constituted GST Tribunal led the petitioner to approach the High Court seeking relief. 6. The learned AGP argued against condoning the delay, stating that there were no reasonable grounds for it, and even if there were, the delay exceeded the statutory limit of 30 days. 7. The Court referred to a previous decision involving Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works, highlighting the importance of adherence to natural justice principles and the necessity of providing reasons in decisions. 8. Quoting the Aggarwal Dyeing case, the Court emphasized the significance of reasons in administrative and quasi-judicial orders, stating that they are essential for transparency, accountability, and ensuring justice is not only done but also appears to be done. 9. The Court, without opining on the power to condone delay beyond the statutory period, ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the show cause notice and impugned orders, and granting liberty to issue a fresh notice with detailed reasons and provide a fair hearing to the petitioner. 10. Following the precedent set by the Aggarwal Dyeing case, the Court allowed the petition, restored the GST registration, and directed the respondent to follow due process in deciding the matter. In conclusion, the High Court's judgment focused on upholding the principles of natural justice, emphasizing the importance of providing detailed reasons in decisions and ensuring a fair hearing for the parties involved. The ruling granted relief to the petitioner by quashing the cancellation order and directing the respondent to follow the legal procedure in deciding the matter.
|
