9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no reason ascribed to take such a harsh action of cancellation of registration. In view of the order being without any application of mind, the same does not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as such, the impugned order dated 07.01.2023 (Annexure - 2) is set aside. The petition is accordingly allowed.' In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law laid down by this Court, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and same are hereby quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. - Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J. For the Petitioner : Deepak Kumar Singh, Vikrant Pratap Singh For the Respondent : C.S.C. ORDER HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard learned coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been filed which has also been dismissed vide order dated 27.6.2024. 4. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Surendra Bahadur Singh Vs. State of UP and others (Writ Tax No. 172 of 2023 decided on 23.8.2023), M/s Namo Narayan Singh Vs. State of UP and others (Writ Tax No. 1476 of 2022 decided on 10.10.2023) and M/s S.S. Traders Vs. State of UP (Writ Tax No. 651 of 2021 decided on 2.11.2021). 5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has supported the impugned orders. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records. 7. The order of cancellation dated 1.6.2023, is extracted hereunder :- Form GST REG-19 [See rule 22 (3)] Ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... au Sector-3 8. On perusal of the aforesaid order, it shows that no reason has been assigned while passing the impugned order. 9. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Bahadur Singh (supra) has held as under:- 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that although no fault can be found with the appellate order dismissing the appeal as Appellate Authority does not have the power to condone the delay in terms of the scheme of the Act, however, he argues that the order cancelling the registration is without application of mind; he draws my attention to the impugned order dated 07.01.2023, which does not disclose any application of mind. He, thus, argues that the quasi judicial order which has an adverse effect on the righ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... however, directed that the petitioner shall file reply to the show-cause notice within a period of three weeks from today. The Adjudicating Authority i.e. Assistant Commissioner, Gonda shall proceed to pass fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after considering whatever defence he may take. 10. Similar view has been taken by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Kanhaiya Lal Construction and Supplier Vs. Superintendent Mainpuri CGST, (Neutral Citation No. 2024:-AHC120411-DB), wherein the Court has set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter. 11. This Court in the case of S.S. Traders (supra) has held as under:- A bare perusal of the show cause notice format prescribed under Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
