Mandatory hearing before revocation rejection under GST was not followed, so the rejection and appellate affirmation failed.

A revocation application under the Uttar Pradesh GST regime could not be rejected without compliance with the mandatory hearing requirement in the proviso to Section 30(2) and Rule 23. The show cause notice did not specify the time to reply or the date and time of personal hearing, and that defect remained unanswered. Because a meaningful opportunity of hearing was a statutory precondition to rejection, the rejection order was unsustainable. The appellate order also failed to examine compliance with the proviso and was liable to be set aside, with the matter remitted for fresh decision in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether rejection of an application for revocation of cancellation of registration was valid when the show cause notice did not specify the time to reply or the date and time of personal hearing, and whether the appellate order ignoring the statutory proviso could stand.

Analysis: Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permits an application for revocation of cancellation of registration, and the proviso to Section 30(2) prohibits rejection unless the applicant has been given an opportunity of being heard. The prescribed procedure under Rule 23 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 requires a proper notice in the prescribed form, a specified time for reply, and a fixed date and time for personal hearing. The notice issued to the petitioner did not specify either the reply period or the hearing schedule, and this defect was not answered in the counter affidavit. The appellate order also did not examine compliance with the proviso to Section 30(2).

Conclusion: The statutory requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing was not complied with. The rejection of the revocation application was therefore unsustainable, and the appellate order was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent of setting aside the appellate order, and the matter was remitted for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute makes hearing a mandatory precondition to rejection of a revocation application, an omission to give a meaningful opportunity of reply and personal hearing vitiates the rejection order and any appellate affirmation of it.

---