Registration cancellation without proper notice violates natural justice principles under Section 29(2)

The HC held that cancellation of registration without proper notice violates natural justice principles. The authority failed to specify exact statutory grounds for treating the firm as "bogus," merely using the term without reference to specific provisions under Section 29(2) of the Act. Registration, once granted with presumption of proper verification, requires heavy burden of proof for cancellation based on five statutory conditions. The authority's defective notice deprived the assessee of opportunity to rebut charges. The Appeal Authority erred by considering merits instead of setting aside the original defective orders. Petition was allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice.
2. Validity of the cancellation of GST registration.
3. Adequacy and specificity of the show cause notice.
4. Proper procedure for revocation of cancellation of registration.
5. Role and decision of the Appeal Authority.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner argued that there was a gross violation of principles of natural justice. Despite the petitioner’s failure to respond to the initial notice dated 22.07.2020, no date for a hearing was fixed or communicated before the cancellation order dated 13.08.2020 was passed. Additionally, during the revocation process, although the notice dated 21.08.2020 mentioned the need for a hearing, no specific date or time was provided, and the order was passed without a personal hearing. The court emphasized that the principles of natural justice were not adhered to, as the petitioner was deprived of a fair opportunity to present their case.

2. Validity of the Cancellation of GST Registration:
The court noted that the cancellation of GST registration has serious consequences, affecting the fundamental right to engage in lawful business. The registration, once granted, carries a presumption of validity. The burden of proof lies on the authority to establish grounds for cancellation under Section 29(2) of the Act. The court observed that the term “bogus” used to describe the firm was not specified in the statutory conditions under Section 29(2), and thus, the cancellation lacked a valid legal basis.

3. Adequacy and Specificity of the Show Cause Notice:
The court found that the show cause notice dated 22.07.2020 was vague and did not specify any of the statutory conditions under Section 29(2) of the Act. The notice merely described the firm as “bogus” without providing specific reasons or evidence. The court held that the notice must clearly state the grounds for cancellation, allowing the assessee to understand and rebut the charges. The lack of specificity in the notice rendered it defective and insufficient to justify the cancellation.

4. Proper Procedure for Revocation of Cancellation of Registration:
The court highlighted procedural lapses in the revocation process. The notice dated 21.08.2020 required the petitioner to respond within seven days and appear for a hearing, but no specific date or time was provided. The order rejecting the revocation application was passed on the same date without a personal hearing. The court noted that the order was as vague as the initial notice, failing to address the petitioner’s reply or provide reasons for rejecting the revocation. The procedural deficiencies further invalidated the cancellation process.

5. Role and Decision of the Appeal Authority:
The Appeal Authority considered the matter on merits but failed to correct the procedural errors of the original authority. The court held that the Appeal Authority should have set aside the defective orders dated 13.08.2020 and 21.08.2020. By not addressing the procedural lapses, the Appeal Authority perpetuated the mistakes, affecting the petitioner’s rights. The court emphasized that the Appeal Authority’s role includes ensuring procedural fairness, which was not upheld in this case.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the orders dated 12.02.2021, 21.08.2020, and 13.08.2020, allowing the writ petition. It left open the possibility for the respondent authority to issue a fresh notice with specific grounds under Section 29(2) of the Act. The court directed that any new proceedings should be decided on their own merits, without prejudice from this judgment. Additionally, the court ordered the communication of this judgment to the Commissioner, State Tax, U.P., to prevent similar issues in the future.

---