Court reinstates GST registration, emphasizes fair hearing. Invalid cancellation due to procedural flaws. Upholds natural justice principles.

The Court set aside the orders cancelling the petitioner's registration under the U.P. GST Act, 2017, emphasizing the importance of providing a fair hearing opportunity before such actions. The cancellation was deemed invalid due to the lack of essential details in the show cause notice and the failure to grant the petitioner a hearing as required by law. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, highlighting the necessity of following statutory procedures and upholding principles of natural justice.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order cancelling registration under U.P. GST Act, 2017.

Detailed Analysis:
The petitioner, a proprietorship concern dealing in Iron and Steel Goods, challenged the cancellation of its registration under the U.P. GST Act, 2017. The cancellation was based on findings that the business was non-functioning, no business activity was found at the premises, and purchases were made from non-existing dealers with bogus input tax credit. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice lacked details of a survey, date, and time for a personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner argued that the cancellation order without a hearing was null and void, as per Section 29 of the Act.

The Standing Counsel defended the cancellation, stating that proceedings under Section 29(1) do not require a hearing, as the show cause notice provides seven days for a reply. However, the Court found merit in the petitioner's argument. The show cause notice lacked essential details, contrary to the prescribed format under Rule 22(1) of the U.P. GST Rules, 2017. The Court noted that the petitioner was not given a hearing opportunity as mandated by law before cancellation.

The Court highlighted the importance of following statutory procedures, emphasizing that denial of a hearing as required by Section 29(2) of the Act invalidates the cancellation proceedings. The Standing Counsel's reference to Section 29(1) was deemed irrelevant, as it applies to specific scenarios not applicable to the petitioner's case. Consequently, the Court quashed both the registration cancellation order and the appeal decision, ruling in favor of the petitioner.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the petition, setting aside the orders cancelling the petitioner's registration under the U.P. GST Act, 2017. The judgment underscores the significance of providing a fair hearing opportunity before taking such drastic actions, ensuring compliance with procedural requirements and upholding principles of natural justice.

---