Writ jurisdiction and natural justice principles led to remand of a GST registration cancellation based on an inadequate enquiry.
Where no further statutory remedy was shown against GST registration cancellation, Article 226 review remained available, and the existence of disputed facts did not by itself bar interference. The HC noted that writ scrutiny can extend to jurisdictional error, procedural fairness, and the integrity of the decision-making process, so refusal to entertain the petition on that ground was unsustainable. On the merits, cancellation and rejection of revocation were based on an incomplete enquiry that did not adequately verify business presence and related facts. The cancellation and revocation orders were therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after notice.
Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable in the absence of an alternative statutory remedy and whether the writ court was justified in declining interference on the ground of disputed facts. (ii) Whether cancellation of GST registration and rejection of revocation were vitiated for want of a proper enquiry, warranting remand for fresh consideration.
Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable in the absence of an alternative statutory remedy and whether the writ court was justified in declining interference on the ground of disputed facts.
Analysis: The impugned cancellation order was not shown to be capable of being challenged before any further statutory forum, and the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could therefore be invoked. The existence of factual controversy by itself did not justify rejection of the writ petition at the threshold. The jurisdictional enquiry in writ proceedings could extend to the correctness of the decision-making process, observance of natural justice, and absence of jurisdictional infirmity.
Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the order refusing interference on the ground of disputed facts was unsustainable.
Issue (ii): Whether cancellation of GST registration and rejection of revocation were vitiated for want of a proper enquiry, warranting remand for fresh consideration.
Analysis: The cancellation was founded on an inspection report and a statement of the receptionist, but the authority did not conduct a fuller enquiry to verify the presence and business activity of the proprietor, the power of attorney holder, and the landlord. The Court held that the authority should have adopted a more effective fact-finding procedure before reaching a conclusion adverse to the assessee. Since the enquiry was found to be flawed, the matter required reconsideration by the original authority on a proper evidentiary basis.
Conclusion: The cancellation and the consequential rejection of revocation were set aside and the matter was remanded for a fresh enquiry.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the earlier orders were interfered with and the registration dispute was sent back for de novo adjudication after notice to the concerned persons.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an effective statutory remedy, writ jurisdiction remains available to examine jurisdictional error and procedural fairness, and a cancellation order founded on an inadequate enquiry cannot stand.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
