2023 (10) TMI 152 - HC - GST

Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the respondent no.2 as barred by limitation as provided under section 107(4) of the UPGST Act - doctrine of merger - HELD THAT - Admittedly from the perusal of the order dated 3.2.2023 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. In Om Prakash Mishra 2022 (9) TMI 1051 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT this Court has held It is essential that every administrative authority or a quasi judicial authority should indicate the reasons, howsoever, brief they may be before passing an order of the nature which has been done by the authority. The order passed dated 15.03.2019 has a very harsh consequences and the same being without any reason whatsoever, fails to satisfy the test of a judicial order and suffers from the vice of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as such, the order dated 15.03.2019 is set aside with direction to the petitioner to file his response to the show cause notice before the respondent no.3 who shall pass fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner with all expedition. The petitioner would be at liberty to place whatever documents he pleases to rely upon in support of his defense. The order dated 3.2.2023 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 involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the cancellation of registration of the petitioner and the dismissal of the appeal on the ground of delay under the UPGST Act.

Cancellation of Registration:
The petitioner challenged the cancellation of registration, contending that it was done without following the provisions of section 29 of the Act and without assigning any reason. The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was passed mechanically and without application of mind. The petitioner also highlighted that the order had an adverse effect on their right to run a business, guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The court found that the cancellation order lacked reasons, which is essential for any judicial or administrative order. Citing precedents, the court emphasized that the absence of reasons rendered the order unjustified in the eyes of the law. The court quashed the order dated 3.2.2023, directing the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice within three weeks for a fresh decision.

Dismissal of Appeal:
The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the grounds of delay, as it was beyond the period of limitation under section 107(4) of the Act. The petitioner argued that detailed reasons for the delay were not considered. The court noted that the doctrine of merger would not apply in this case, given the circumstances. Referring to previous judgments, the court reiterated the importance of providing reasons in administrative and quasi-judicial orders. The court highlighted that the appeal not being decided on merit meant that the doctrine of merger did not apply. The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order dated 3.2.2023 and directing a fresh decision after affording the petitioner an opportunity to present a defense.

Separate Judgment:
In a separate judgment, the court referenced previous cases to emphasize the necessity of providing reasons in administrative and quasi-judicial orders. The court set aside the order dated 15.03.2019, directing the petitioner to file a response to the show cause notice for a fresh decision. The court allowed the writ petition in terms of the said order.