2024 (2) TMI 857 - HC - GST

Cancellation of registration of petitioner - time limitation - cancellation of registration has been passed without any application of mind - no reply to SCN has been submitted - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - In the present case, the facts are similar to one in SURENDRA BAHADUR SINGH VERSUS STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. COMMERCIAL TAX (GST) LKO. AND 2 OTHERS 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 November 15, 2022 and the appellate order dated December 30, 2023 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.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves a writ petition challenging the cancellation of registration under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Cancellation of Registration:
The petitioner challenged the cancellation of registration, arguing that the order was passed without proper application of mind. The petitioner pointed out discrepancies in the order, where it was mentioned that a reply was filed but also stated that no reply was submitted. Citing previous judgments, the petitioner emphasized the importance of providing reasons in judicial proceedings. The court noted that the cancellation order lacked reasoning and set it aside, directing the petitioner to file a reply to the show-cause notice within three weeks for a fresh decision by the Adjudicating Authority.

Appellate Order:
The petitioner also contested the appellate order, claiming that it did not disclose any application of mind. Referring to legal precedents, the petitioner argued that the quasi-judicial order adversely affected their right to conduct business, as guaranteed under the Constitution. The court agreed that the appellate order lacked reasoning and set it aside along with the original cancellation order. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to present their defense before a fresh decision by the Adjudicating Authority.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the High Court quashed both the original order for cancellation of registration and the appellate order. The petitioner was directed to respond to the show-cause notice within three weeks for a fresh decision by the Adjudicating Authority, ensuring a fair opportunity to be heard. The writ petition was allowed with these directions.