9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 713 - HC - GSTCancellation of registration of petitioner - time barred appeal - non-reasoned order - 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 , wherein the appeal was barred by time under Section 107 of the Act. However, the Division Bench in Surendra Bahadur Singh's case 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 October 17, 2019 and the appellate order dated July 12, 2022 are quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to file its reply to the show cause notice within three weeks from date and the adjudicating authority is directed to proceed de novo and pass order after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the cancellation of registration under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the lack of application of mind in passing the orders dated October 17, 2019, and July 12, 2022. Cancellation of Registration: The petitioner challenged the order for cancellation of registration dated October 17, 2019, and the subsequent order dated July 12, 2022, passed in appeal under Section 107 of the Act. The petitioner argued that the cancellation was done without proper application of mind, as evident from discrepancies in the order itself regarding the submission of a reply by the petitioner. The petitioner relied on previous court judgments emphasizing the need for reasons to be provided in such orders, as the absence of reasons violates the principles of natural justice and the right to run a business as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Application of Mind and Judicial Review: The petitioner contended that the order cancelling the registration lacked proper application of mind, which is essential for any quasi-judicial decision affecting the rights of individuals. The court referred to previous judgments highlighting the importance of providing reasons in administrative or quasi-judicial orders. The court held that the order dated January 7, 2023, cancelling the registration, did not provide any reasons for such a drastic action, thereby failing to meet the requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the petitioner to file a reply to the show-cause notice within three weeks for fresh adjudication by the Assistant Commissioner. Judicial Precedents and Legal Principles: The court considered previous judgments, such as Surendra Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. and others, and M/s Namo Narayan Singh v. State of U.P., to emphasize the necessity of providing reasons in judicial proceedings. Drawing on these precedents, the court concluded that the orders cancelling the registration in the present case were non-reasoned and therefore liable to be set aside. The court directed the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice and mandated a fresh adjudication process with proper opportunity for the petitioner to present their defense. Conclusion: In light of the lack of application of mind and the absence of reasons in the orders for cancellation of registration, the High Court quashed and set aside the original order dated October 17, 2019, and the appellate order dated July 12, 2022. The court allowed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice within three weeks for a fresh adjudication process by the Assistant Commissioner, ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles.
|
